Talk:Richard Roberts (evangelist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright violation?[edit]

The text of this page is word-for-word from Roberts' official violation on the ORU website (http://www.oru.edu/aboutoru/richardroberts.html). Can someone who knows more about this examine for possible copyright violation?Scarletsmith 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the copyright violation has been removed. Dmcdevit·t 19:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees[edit]

those [sic] 's don't belong where they are someone more qualified than I should take care of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.41.74 (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think when the website of any university describes its president's degrees as "a bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate" it brings up more than enough questions to qualify the quote in encyclopedic terms with [sic]. Gwen Gale 08:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RNC information[edit]

Including it where it's at (directly after Mrs. Roberts' peccadilloes) implies that the RNC association was somehow improper. It was not. Refrain from re-adding it until it can be properly placed in context. You will be reported for violation of WP:3RR if you revert again.K. Scott Bailey 00:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it somewhere else then. Thanks. Gwen Gale 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is all that I felt needed to be done. I simply didn't have the inclination to try to find a spot to place it that wouldn't make it seem as if that was one of the things the school did wrong. It did plenty wrong (apparently), but working with the RNC was not one of those things.K. Scott Bailey 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. From what I gather, if they were providing material assistance to a political party it was likely illegal. Either way, text placement can sometimes mislead a casual reader and I was happy to move it. All the best. Gwen Gale 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I felt the wording itself was inflammatory, as the lawsuit makes VERY clear (Have you read it all yet? If not, you should. It's interesting.) that the RNC work was within the bounds of legality and appropriateness, as the university never paid anything out to any candidates or groups. It was after they started dallying in local politics (and using university funds to do so) that they ran afoul of the law.K. Scott Bailey 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Please let me know what you think of the wording now. Gwen Gale 01:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine. I'm not sure why it has to be in there, but if it has to, then--for the sake of fairness and accuracy--it does need to be clear that the RNC work was not improper.K. Scott Bailey 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I believe the RNC work predates the Miller Campaign edict from Roberts by a good while, which might call into question linking them so closely in the narrative.K. Scott Bailey 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the whole lawsuit now and agree with your take on this. The AP got a couple of details slightly wrong which is all the more reason why the article could helpfully explain the political side. Let me see what I can do to further clarify the text. Cheers. Gwen Gale 01:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family section[edit]

I still think this should be merged with the introduction until it does, in fact, "grow further", but at least it's not a one sentence section, which is what precipitated my merging it to begin with. Good luck with the article. I always feel like I need a shower after I dip my toe into waters like Roberts and his ilk.K. Scott Bailey 02:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the family section. I didn't restore it until I stumbled across more detail and I'm looking for more. I agree with you on the other stuff too. Gwen Gale 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article about the university or Roberts?[edit]

Is the article about the university or Roberts? As of right now, the part about the lawsuit is copy and pasted from the ORU article. If there is a difference between Roberts and the university, then the content should be at least a little different.

Since I posted with a summary this is more about university= removed and was told to stop "randomly removing material w/o explanation." Maybe some can explain if it is normal to have identical passages on different articles? NNtw22 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the article, you will see that the lawsuit is nearly completely about actions committed by Richard and Lindsay Roberts. As such, the material is completely appropriate for both articles, and should not be randomly removed.K. Scott Bailey 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue was more than this was a carbon copy section of another article. As Richard Roberts had a carrer as a faith healer prior to his 14 year term as the head of ORU, we should also try to expand other portions. C56C 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious section[edit]

I've removed what seems to be dubious gossip attributed to James Randi interpreting Ashes to Gold by Patti Roberts. In accordance with WP:BLP great care should be taken to avoid adding such information. .. dave souza, talk 23:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming The Faith Healers isn't a WP:RS? What part of BLP you are citing to remove this isn't clear. But whatever. The review of Patti Roberts' book Ashes to Gold in The New York Review of Books also discusses the same event. (Your claim that Randi is presenting "dubious gossip" is rather silly, and you should have explained what part of BLP you think applies here.) C56C 15:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a helpful thing to do. Gossipy stuff like that is ok in the context of a book by Patti, where we know it's one person's hearsay account and can take it as such. In a short encyclopedic style article on a public wiki though, not only do we have the worries raised by WP:BLP, but WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale 00:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The event in question had a profound impact on both Roberts', according to the review in The New York Review of Books as well as other sources. As such, I have trimmed it back and added it. Keep in mind Roberts is 61 and has been ORU president in the last 14 years, and very little is about his non-president career. Since the article notes this a very public relationship ("were highly visible participants"), information about said relationship should be included C56C 15:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a moment to carefully review WP:Coatrack, WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. I have no doubt about the accuracy of Patti's story from Patti's perspective. However, the article is still very short, in encyclopedic terms her account is hearsay and the marriage ended long ago. Lastly, going by your comment above, I think you may be attempting to psychoanalyze Richard Roberts with a spanned citation, which would be strongly deprecated by WP:OR. Gwen Gale 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was was told be would be "killed by God" according to his father, which influenced his marriage and carrer according to his wife. You have not explained how this fails BLP, how it is WP:Coatrack (which I think you should re-read-- it refers to articles), nor how one sentence about his relationship/marriage fails WP:WEIGHT. Lastly, it is not WP:OR. Everything is from the cited article. You are arguing many things, so walk me through it. What part of BLP do you think his review from NYRB applies here?
Your mention that "her account is hearsay," I presume in the sense that she was there and heard it. Well, so is the lawsuit listed which takes up 50% of the article. The only difference is Roberts denies the claims from the lawsuit, but hasn't gone on record denying Patti's claim. Should we remove the lawsuit too? C56C 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lawsuit is not hearsay. It is documented in the public record. Moreover, the plaintiffs are careful to note the allegations are supported by records, photographs and other materials they've gathered. I agree the lawsuit section is long but it made international news and is notable. Gwen Gale 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the lawsuit isn't hearsay, but the details in the lawsuit is hearsay:

Other allegations against Roberts include claims he used university funds to pay for his daughter's trip to The Bahamas by providing the university jet and billing other costs to the school, maintains a stable of horses on campus and at university expense for the exclusive use of his children, regularly summons university and ministry staff to the Roberts house to do his daughters’ homework, has remodeled his house at university expense 11 times in the past 14 years, allowed the university to be billed both for damage done by his daughters to university-owned golf carts and for video-taped vandalism caused by one of his minor daughters

That is hearsay. The professors don't claim to have direct knowledge of it, and moreover they don't affirm that it did happen. They said they found a report about it. In contrast, Patti has direct knowledge and affirms it did happen. You see how one claims to have knowledge something occured and other doesn't? However, you dismiss Patti's assertation and keep in the professor's hearsay.C56C 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll start with WP:OR. I believe you are trying to use Patti's account to tacitly assert Richard Roberts is more or less a nut case because of his father. I wouldn't be comfortable with this clear inference without a direct statement supported by a verfiable source (other than the opinion of an ex-spouse). However, we would then be dealing with the criticism guidelines of WP:BLP. WP:Coatrack because the account says more about Oral Roberts than it does his son. WP:WEIGHT because the article is still way short, the family section is still but a blurb and the account about Oral "threatening" plane wrecks not only wholly skews it away from WP:NPOV but also leaves the reader with an impression that Richard's family life has been defined by the incident which brings us back to WP:OR: Without a citation from a reliable secondary source that this single incident had a lasting and indelible sway on RR's life, its presence in the article as it is now would amount to original research. Gwen Gale 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I believe you are trying to use Patti's account to tacitly assert Richard Roberts is more or less a nut case..." That is a Strawman. There is no way his father's actions, from that sentence nor the article, can be reasonably construed as calling Richard a "nutcase" let alone "a nutcase because of his father." Those are very indosyncratic views of policy. Coatrack refers to "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." It refers to an article, and further the sentence in quesiton is about three people including Richard's relationship. WEIGHT "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints..." And Patti's view of how the relationship and Richard should be described. One sentence is not WP:UNDUE. Your claims about WP:OR are equally unfounded, please read the book reeview article: the words "horror," "distress," "fake feelings," and so on appear
Again, you cite BLP, but haven't specifically cited what part. BLP for criticism says "Content should be sourced to reliable sources"... are you asserting in the NYBR review isn't reliable? Wikipedia isn't interested in WP:TRUTH. C56C 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see if other editors think my take on this is an unfounded idiosyncratic strawman. Cheers. Gwen Gale 19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different parts of your argument consist of one strawman, at least one idiosyncratic understanding/reading of the policy, and another point was unfounded. C56C 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be most helpful if we wait for some other editors to comment on this now. Thanks. Gwen Gale 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> Well, as BLP says, Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Here we have an account by a divorced ex-wife, likely to be a biased source, retold by a book reviewer and not a biographer. All of that seems dubious to me, and the specific section is about Oral Roberts rather than Richard. In my opinion it is inappropriate material for this article. However, if need be this can always be taken up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. .. dave souza, talk 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article called Ashes to Gold about Patti's book might be helpful, which could go into detail about how she describes her experiences. It could be wikilinked from the family section of this article (it's already mentioned there). Gwen Gale 06:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from autobiography[edit]

  • His ministry biography He's the God of a Second Chance says Richard began his healing ministry in 1980 following his second marriage when he "blurted out 'Lord heal that man's toe'" and "before the year ended, Richard was healing the deaf, blind, and lame."[1]

I've moved this here because a) it is an autobiography, b) the syntax of the quote doesn't match the first person singular one would expect in an autobiography (hence I think whoever put this in the article may have been sloppy about the use of quotation marks and attributions) c) the citation of the review it came from is behind a registration wall and d) I'm not at all sure how notable an evangelistic assertion like this is to begin with.

I don't think this quote can be restored to the article until it has been verified and even then, I don't think it adds meaningful context to an NPoV narrative about an evangelist. Gwen Gale 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How citing works: A quote (or quotes) refers to the citation provided at the end of the sentence. Thus, the quote is not from Roberts' book, but the quote is from a New York Book Review article about Roberts' book.
The syntax still doesn't match the 1st person singular of an autobio and hence can only mislead or distract readers. Gwen Gale 18:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Roberts family started out as "healers." They try to down play that fact now. Only someone will limited knowledge of their past would think it was a trival matter. These people made millions upon millions through their faith healing. To white-wash that seems rather onesided. C56C 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with with this different quote which you have put in the text, although I corrected your spelling errors and NPoV'd the narrative. Gwen Gale 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gardener, Martin (August 13, 1987). "Giving God a Hand". New York Review of Books. Retrieved 2007-10-18.

POV[edit]

A lot of material on Richard Roberts was added today. Much of it seems OK although it could use more references. There are major issues, though, with POV and promotional statements. As an encyclopedia this is a place for neutral writing, and statements like "Hundreds and thousands more receive healings and miracles as Richard preaches God’s Word and prays for the sick, moving freely in the gifts of the Holy Spirit—especially the word of knowledge—as referenced in the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians, chapter 12" are not encyclopedic. I've started some editing and marking, but there is a lot more to do. In short, though, not everyone believes that Christianity is true, and the article should not be written with the assumption that it is, as much as an editor may believe it. Also, the list of all his crusades is probably more information than is needed here. --Beirne (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the POV template. The new material from the last few weeks reads like a corporate bio for Richard Roberts. I have fixed some things but there are still issues. The material about the lawsuits and his resigning as president of ORU went a bit far in the other way. Since it is all part of Richard's story, the sections about his career and resignation should be combined into one neutral narrative. --Beirne (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles[edit]

I've marked a the statement about Richard seeing God's miracles as dubious. There is no way to prove whether the miracles occurred or not. This needs to be rephrased in a more neutral manner. --Beirne (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous films and now video tapes of people, in their own words, confirming that they had some miracle happen to them. On the current oralroberts.com web site there is a large number of video clips of people stating that they were healed after a Roberts prayed for them. Roberts has stated on numerous occasions that he did witness miracles in tent services as a young child. There are television programs proving that, as thousands of people witnessed the event. It amazed me that a person can make alligations with no proof and you have no problem putting those reports in, but a person says that he saw something happen that you do not believe and it can be justified for removal just because you/someone does not believe it. 72.213.160.167 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with changing the wording to say that Richard stated that he saw miracles, I'm just uncomfortable with the article saying that they occurred as a matter of fact. After reading your comment I scrolled down and reviewed the part about the lawsuits and ORU. I took out one part that was just a statement of opinion by Brooker. The allegations were part of the record in the lawsuit, though, and are useful for history. Richard's response to the lawsuit is in there, and if he said more it is fine to put it in. --Beirne (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood about some of your issues... I'm still working on condensing the amout of space the table is taking. I am also working on aquiring photos of a number of the events listed in the table. These represent recorded events that happened around the world. You requested proof. I will attempt to aquire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwen Glower (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the table, I'm not looking for proof, I just don't think it belongs in the article. It makes the article harder to read, as it requires a lot of scrolling to get past it to get to more of the text. Also, it is just a list of place he traveled to, which is not notable information. It would be like listing every place a band toured, or every place that Billy Graham had a crusade, and this just isn't done. --Beirne (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard's travelog[edit]

I see the table of Richard's travels was put back in. I took it out because it does not contain any useful information. Why would anyone care that on 1983 October 2 he went to Vancouver, Canada? What does that tell us about him? The comment on the restoration said that other articles have tables, but that does not mean anything on its own. Other articles may have tables with more useful information, so the existence of tables in them does not say anything about this table. Finally, consider what it would be like if a table was added showing Richard's height over his lifetime. This would obviously be pointless, but I'm not convinced that his travelog tells us anything more useful than the list of his heights. The editor says she is working on adding pictures, but that will not help. It still won't provide add useful info to the article. --Beirne (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is all relative to your opinion. How do you know what the entire "World of Wiki' feels is useful information and what gives you the right to make that determination. I believe there are many people that would like to know the places he has spoke/ministered. Comparing events that happen around the world to one's height and weight show's your bias to fair and open posting of information on this page. I agree that the posting is long and I am going to work on a way to compress the size of the table. As stated, I have requested photos of these global events. I have been told it is under review as they are work on finding photos from different locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwen Glower (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not just my opinion. Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for any fact someone can think of. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. The big table of Richard's travels falls somewhere in-between the excessive listing of statistics and news reports. The travelog does not even say that he spoke or ministered in the places listed. All it says is that it is the Travel and Ministry Log. So maybe he traveled there to speak, or to help lay bricks for a church, or just to get away. The table does not say and does not attach any significance to any of the places he went. That is why the list is little more useful than a table of his heights would be. If something noteworthy happened at some of the locations then put it in the narrative, but I'm guessing most of the visits were pretty routine and a table is not merited. --Beirne (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colon healing claim[edit]

I marked the paragraph about Richard's healed colon as dubious. The claim that he experience it is useful for his story, but his telling the story is not enough evidence for inclusion in Wikipedia. A reliable secondary source is needed. --Beirne (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject Promoting Content[edit]

It is hard to get useful information out of the article as it is presently written. The content that doesn't impart any useful information needs to be removed. Also there is additional content that doesn't seem to agree with the sources cited.

We need to discuss it prior to you removing any content. Please agree that other editors may have a different opinion on that matter.--Unitty4life (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take the following paragraph:

But despite his talents and accomplishment in areas other than ministry, as a college student Roberts soon decided that God had a different plan for his life. Becoming sick with a colon infection that was soon to require surgery,[5] he remembered his father’s teaching that God is a good God who wants to heal those who ask, and he summoned the courage to pray: “Lord, if You’ll heal me, I will serve You.” Just as he said he experienced many times as a boy when his dad would pray for him, he said he felt the power of God surge through his body with a divine jolt of energy. New medical tests revealed that he no longer required surgery; the infection was gone.[3][dubious – discuss]

What is the point of this paragraph? What encyclopedic information does it impart?

I have to disagree with you on that one. The encyclopedic material provided in here is the actual event that took place in Richards life. It prompted him to radically change his lifestyle. The sickness is what caused him to turn around. I will not be arguing with you on how he got healed but the bottom line is the actual event that took place. --Unitty4life (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take this part:

On January 14, 2008 the outgoing ORU board of regents voted unanimously to name Richard Roberts president emeritus in honor of his work during 15 years as president.[33] By the spring of 2009 most of the lawsuits had been settled or dismissed, except for at least one was reportedly pending appeal against the University. Richard Roberts has been released from all suits.[34]

The source cited says that a set of student-filed suits was dropped, but that doesn't mean that all litigation arising from allegations about Roberts' conduct was dropped. --Nogburt (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Oklahoma Site Case Network all of the suits are dropped. The information is correct. --Unitty4life (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor can rm text which is unsupported by citations and looks like it may not be verifiable. Moreover, in a WP:BLP there's nothing untowards about taking out anything which doesn't match up with a cited source. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like a promotional piece for its subject. Only a fraction of the article's content is encyclopedic. The article needs to be rewritten. --Nogburt (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you completely. Promotional material does not include any events that the person might not be comfortable with. This article does talk about law suits from the University as well as Richard Roberts stepping down from the post of the President, therefore, you cannot label it as a promotional material because if it was none of that would be included. Moreover, I have to say that whoever wrote or edited that material did a great job on selecting the correct words and not using a "street language". It is in fact an encyclopedic material. --Unitty4life (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a long career section filled with a glowing telling of Richard's life story from primary sources is not encyclopedic, even with the separate section on the lawsuits and his resignation. The tone has to be neutral throughout. --Beirne (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the tone has to be neutral, however, this is his career and that is what he did. We can reword some things. --Unitty4life (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that my previous changes addressing some of the article's POV and subject-promotion issues were reverted. I'm going to go back in and try to make some more modest revisions. It shouldn't be necessary for me to give a line by line justification for why I change some of the most unneutral parts of the article. Statements like the following aren't encyclopedic.:

—Roberts was uniquely qualified to assume the position of President granted to him by the Board of Regents in 1993,
Hundreds of personal salvations and healings of all types were reported by those who either received prayer at the clinics or attended the nightly healing services where Roberts preached and prayed. Many came forward publicly to the platform to testify of what God had done for them.,
and Having resigned from ORU in 2007 to commit his time more fully to running OREA and working and travelling in his “first love”. --Nogburt (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last phrase about resigning from ORU is an encyclopedic statement. That was the exact reason he did step down, to commit more time to the ministry. --Unitty4life (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like when a CEO steps down to spend more time with his family. He had gotten a no-confidence vote from the faculty and was having his spending practices scrutinized. We of course can't speculate on what was going through his head, but this statement makes it sound like he just wanted to do something else, and it puts it in Richard's terms with the quote about his "first love". This is another case of a primary source being used rather than secondary, assuming a source is provided at all. --Beirne (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vote of no confidence and having his spending practices reviewed do not prove his guilt neither they prove that is was the reason he stepped down. That is what Richard said in his last chapel, therefore, it needs to be included because it is his side of the story. The material in fact encyclopedic of an actual event and an actual quote from Richard that did take place. --Unitty4life (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about undoing so much, it was just that some of it seemed like reasonable content about Richard's life, assuming it is true. Now, some (or a lot) of what I put back needs to be fixed, but it was easier to bring everything back than to try to put the acceptable parts back in. Looking at the article again and the issues list at the top, though, I am thinking that the last point in the list, that the article needs to be rewritten, is making sense. The problem is that the story reads like a promo piece for him. I took out some of the promotional stuff months ago, but there is still a lot left. What makes this difficult is that we are working from his own life story, which is the wrong approach to begin with. The article should be built from reliable secondary sources. So even if we get the text fixed up, it is still Richard's story of his life. That works fine in his books, but not in an encyclopedia. The article needs to be rewritten from secondary sources and written in a more neutral fashion. --Beirne (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree that the article needs to be rewritten. It is not a promo piece because the article does talk about the negative things that took place in his life. Promo materials will not include that. The words that are used in the article to describe him are in fact very proper words. I do not find anything wrong with it. The article is very much neutral. --Unitty4life (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the three issues back into the article. We had not come to a consensus on the rewrite so it was premature to take that out. And the career section really is written like Richard's personal story, which is a problem. It is a long promo section that has been toned down somewhat but basically is Richard's life story told in his words or words that sound like they come from the OREA. I'm not saying that they do come from there, but the tone is of someone's wonderful life story. Too many peacock words and a non-encyclopedic assumption of miracles and either primary or the lack of sources make the career section hard to fix. --Beirne (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise do not be putting issues back without discussing it first! The only part I removed now is the rewriting of the complete article, I left the part about his personal story. We can work on editing the words together. I do not agree with you that it is said in his own words. Most of it are actual facts that did take place. I am not sure where they came from but the tone is correct. I disagree with you about non-encyclopedic facts. Look at the way other articles are written, this one uses very proper English. I am willing to work with you on editing some words and sections but rewriting the whole article is absurd. --Unitty4life (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't come into an article with a discussion that you have not been involved in, take out something under discussion without some sort of resolution, and then tell us not to undo your unilateral change. The issue says the article may need a rewrite, so it leave things open for discussionn. --Beirne (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is split up, I'm going to answer Unitty4life's other points here. Regarding the glowing prose about Richard's life story, it falls in the self-published category of sources. The use of such sources requires, among other things, that the material is not unduly self-serving, that there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and that the article is not based primarily on such sources. This career section violates all three. The books are all about how wonderful Richard is, being published by the OREA to promote the ministry. There is good reason to doubt the miracles, and the article is largely based on his self-published books. It doesn't look like it in the reference section just because much of the material isn't explicitely sourced. Regarding the reasons for Richard stepping down, that is a controversial issue that should come from a reliable secondary source and not what he said at the chapel. The sentence is no longer in the article, though, so this is a moot point. --Beirne (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beirne, I am willing to work with you and address those issues and reword some words, however, there is no need to rewrite the whole article. As you stated earlier, it may need to be rewritten. I believe we should reword some words and work together. We are after the same goal to have an encyclopedic article. I fully believe that the "rewrite part" should be removed and let's work on fixing things up
Some things quoted in this article come from the book " He’s the God of a Second Chance, 1985":
- It is unfair to suggest that the material is self-serving because the book talks about Richard turning away from God, therefore again it is not a promotional material but an account of an actual events that include things that Richard regrets.
- The book was published by Harrison House which is a authentic book publishing house, it was reviewed and for you to state that there is doubt about its authenticity is very much unreasonable
- The article is not based on just that one book primarily. Take a look at multiple press releases.
Wikipedia states: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". It is allowed but should be used with caution.
Again, the information about lawsuit and controversy is still there. Likewise his accomplishments are listed as well with some references to a well recognized Tulsa World newspaper.
It is very unfair to assume that if the accomplishments overweight controversy the article is not neutral. It is, it has both sides presented. Let the reader decide.
I still do not see anything wrong with this article. I will post the references to his book.--Unitty4life (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard's story about turning away from God when young does not indicate balance. Part of the standard Christian narrative is redemption, and it just boosts the salvation part.
It's not unreasonable to doubt credibility of "He’s the God of a Second Chance" when the article says it is published by the OREA. This should be fixed in the article, as I did not know it was published by a third party.
I didn't say the article was based on one book at all. I said it was largely based on self-published sources about Richard.
When you quoted "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves", you didn't even keep the rest of the sentence or refer to the requirements that go with that. Here is the whole section:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.''
As I stated earlier, the article appears to violate three of these points, although maybe not as much on the reliance on self-published sources.
My problem isn't with the accomplishments outweighing the controversy. It is with the career section being written like an OREA piece, gushing over Richard. It is written this way because it is based on his own writing. This is not neutral. --Beirne (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement about Redemption boosting salvation is your personal opinion. Some Christian denominations do not share that view. It shows a balance where Richard lived a poor lifestyle before and a Christian lifestyle after he came back to his family. Some Christians would find that a very negative part of his life, changing their opinion about him. It shows two completely opposite sides of Richard.
I read Wikipedia's requirements, and that is why I was trying to respond to all three of them by bullet points
I do not believe the career section is written by OREA, just look at the references. Most of them are awards and accomplishments that are proved by valid references. I will not go one-by-one but you see my point. They are real facts that took place and for you to say that it is not neutral when they are pointed to the press releases and news articles is very much unreasonable. Awards and recognitions are not his writing! It is an authenticated events!
The article is neutral because it has:
1. Law suits and resegnation backed by credible sources including newspaper articles.
2. Awards and accomplishments that are backed by credible sources including newspaper articles and press releases.
Bots sides are presented. Beirnie, I value your opinion and I observe the edits you are making. Let's finish it so we can remove the POV table. I will work on more references --Unitty4life (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some Christian denominations may not share the view, but the people Richard writes for like the story of redemption. Evangelicals will forgive just about anything if the person is saved, so him writing about turning from God and some mild sinning is not a sign of balance. Very few people would be critical of him for that.
You may have read Wikipedia's requirements, but you quoted them out of context.
I don't believe the career section is written by the OREA either, it just sounds like it. Most of the career section is based on Richard's books. Press release are not independent sources.
A neutral point of view does not mean that you have a pro-Richard section and an anti-Richard section. It means that the article be written in a neutral fashion throughout, and this is not the case.
I don't have a problem in general with awards, although some of them are pretty weak, like winning Alumnus of the Year from the university where he is the president that his father founded. --Beirne (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you speak for people who Richards writes to? This is again your personal opinion. I actually surprised you said it this way because you are the one who promotes neutral views. I agree to disagree so lets move on
Going point by point on the POV table:
  1. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. It does have sources from third party publications as Tulsa World newspaper and OSCN. I agree that in general, there will be a limited amount of third-party publications about him, but the article does have them. Why is it still in the POV table??
  2. Its quality may be compromised by peacock terms. I noticed you edited some peacock terms out. What else is in there that concerns you? Please discuss specifics.
  3. Its neutrality is disputed. We can go back and forth on this one. Wikipedia states: Representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The lawsuit is backed by a reliable source as well as the awards and accomplishments. Those are not opinions but an actual events that are in his life that took place.
  4. Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words. Please discuss specifics
  5. It is written in an informal style and with a personally invested tone. It reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry. I disagree on that one. Article uses very proper English and not a story tone. I noticed you edited some words. What else is left?
  6. It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Since we already editing sections there is no need for a complete rewrite.
Just like I understand your side please understand mine. I feel you have a bias towards that person to some degree which is OK and this is your opinion but the willingness to see both sides of the coin is greatly appreciated because that is where neutral view is created. --Unitty4life (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see there are some disagreements in about this article. After reading the article and all the above material I have to agree that the article is neutral. Both sides are presented. I also would like to move forward with the removal of the disputed material on the POV table. --Jb865714 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? You just joined Wikipedia and this is the only edit you have ever done? --Beirne (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know something about Richard's audience because I went to Oral Roberts University for 2-1/2 years and have a bachelor's degree from there. I'm allowed to have opinions on the talk page, I just have to be neutral in the article. Now the points:
  1. Sources - All of the sources are either from Richard's books or ORU/OREA material until the rally in Niger. After the Niger paragraph the sources are all press releases until the 10 Who Cared award paragraph close to the end of the career section. After that it is nearly all secondary sources, or not sourced at all. The problem is that nearly all of the career section is from either Richard or the ministry. A few references for the Niger rally and an award or two do not make for independent sourcing. This is Richard's story of his life. I will admit, though, that it will be difficult to find good secondary sources, as he hasn't attracted biographies, and Patti's book doesn't count.
  2. Peacock terms - Yes, I've cleaned out a lot of them. More peacock wording: "summoned the courage to pray", "Additional outreaches are being planned every day", "Roberts guided ORU through an intensive accreditation review".
  3. Neutrality - The career section is all about how great Richard is, although not as much as before. Since it nearly all comes from Richard and the ministry this is to be "expected. It leaves some things out, which I guess I could put in. For example, it tells the good about his early college career, but does not point out that he dropped out of his own father's college that he could go to for free. It also says how there was record enrollment while Richard was president, but it does not mention how low it was when he enrolled and how far in debt he left the university. The colon healing story is another tricky issue. Richard says it happened but there is no independent verification of the healing. The paragraph has been neutralized a bit but needs to be rewritten. The tone section of the policy for biographies of living people says: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself." What I've been trying to do is make the tone more dispassionate. Note that secondary sources should be the main ones.
  4. Weasel words - I didn't add that one (as well as some of the others but I understand them) and don't know exactly which words are considered weasel ones in the article. The only one that stands out for me is "Local pastors had told him there were only 5,000 Christians", but my problem with that is more the lack of sourcing.
  5. Story tone - "But despite his talents and accomplishment in areas other than ministry, as a college student Roberts soon decided that God had a different plan for his life", and "Just as he said he experienced many times as a boy when his father would pray for him, he said he felt the power of God surge through his body with a divine jolt of energy". It isn't as bad in this regard as before
  6. Complete rewrite - The career section is almost all primary sources telling Richard's version of his life. It will be hard to blend in secondary sources and maintain coherence.
We're all biased, which is not a problem. The issue is if we show our bias in the article. When the career section was rewritten it filled the section with bias, which I am trying to undo. As far as I know, though, I have have not made any changes in the article that bias it against Richard, I have just made it more neutral. --Beirne (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beirne, here are some of the things I suggest/did:
  1. I edited the section about 5000 pastors. I believe the weasel words tab can come down from the table.
  2. Also since you edited the story tone is there any other sentences that concern you? Can this part be removed from the POV?
I fixed the sentence about dropped law suits because according to OSCN there are no more pending ones against Richard nor the University. All of them are settled/dismissed.
Are there any other peacock terms?
Thank you for your input.--Unitty4life (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break for convenience[edit]

In looking at this purely as a Wikipedia editor who knows nothing about Mr. Roberts, the article definitely has some neutrality and encyclopedic issues. Using primary sources in any BLP article is tricky because, while they are useful in verifying non-controversial facts, they definitely can present issues of bias if used too heavily. And even if neutrality were established in an article simply by having "positive" and "negative" sections this would fail simply because the "positive" section is FAR larger than the "negative" section. Beirne is correct that neutrality needs to be throughout the article; presenting facts that are supported by reliable sources rather than simply telling Roberts' story largely using his own words. The biggest concern I see is the frequent use of quotes from Roberts' own work. While quotes are certainly appropriate, too much affects the tone, particularly when they are inserted the way they are. Direct quotes should be used sparingly and only when the direct quote is the best way to present the information. Further, it needs to be very clear that the quotes are Roberts' own words, so including "What Roberts referred to as..." or "what Roberts called..." etc. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text has slowly been getting less over-the-top, but it still carries way too much promotional ("peacock") content, as one would see on an organization's or a personal website: Big swaths are still not written from a neutral outlook. His own autobiography (which may not be neutral and need not be) seems to be referenced far too much. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, with Beirne, JonRidinger, and Gwen Gale, about overall tone and about the overuse of primary sources such as Roberts' own work. The Career section reads like a paean to Roberts in its current form. Like all our articles, this one must (1) state verifiable facts; (2) from reliable sources, preferably secondary ones independent of the subject; (3) in a neutral tone. The large Career section doesn't do these things. With single-purpose user Unitty4Life (talk · contribs) as the standout, it appears to me that there's consensus here for a rewrite. Looks like a case for wp:bold, to me.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have moved the rewrite template to the career section where it makes more sense. Now the hard part of rewriting. It is a bit hard finding good secondary sources for Roberts. He is famous enough to have coverage in the last few years but not so much earlier in his life. --Beirne (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked some and the book Oral Roberts: An American Life shows some promise as a fair source. Too bad it isn't at my library. --Beirne (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good on you, Beirne; this has needed attention for a long while. Re the book, I'm sure you know that many public libraries ( in the U.S.A. anyway ) will undertake an "interlibrary loan" for you at no charge, borrowing the book on your behalf from a library system that has it, and making it available to you just as if it were in their own collection? Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I ended up ordering the book for 85¢ at Amazon. I couldn't pass on a good deal. --Beirne (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely reworked this article[edit]

I removed (I think) all of the unsourced material, and reworked some problematic phrasings, where the language seemed fairly peacocky, or was just poorly-worded. I also removed some peacocky stuff that was sourced to OREA press releases and things like that. Please don't add back in unsourced material without discussing here. LHM 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Richard Roberts (evangelist). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Richard Roberts (evangelist). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Roberts_(evangelist)&oldid=1210075798"