Talk:Richard Roberts (evangelist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (rated as Mid importance)
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Copyright Violation?

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)

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

[edit] Degrees

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)

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)

[edit] RNC Information

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)

I'll put it somewhere else then. Thanks. Gwen Gale 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Understood. Please let me know what you think of the wording now. Gwen Gale 01:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


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)
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)
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)

[edit] Family Section

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Dubious section

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)

<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)

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)

[edit] Quote from autobiography

  • 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)

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)
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)
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)