Talk:Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2024. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Floated
Needs more sources and photos.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC) And if Mr. John Oliver thinks his megachurch is the be-all end-all, us Wikipedians know deep in our believing hearts that there is only one true church worthy of megachurch-i-ality. How do I know this? Because John's church is inside OUR church.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Page move
ResolvedWill an admin please move this article to Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption (lower case "of") to comply with WP's manual of style, please? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, good idea, just note that there was an original lower-case of article first.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Category:Evangelical churches in Texas?
ResolvedWhy is this category included when the prose mentions nothing about Texas? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- That category was added by User:Tomwsulcer, with the edit summary "add back category -- note the church is legally Texas-based, as JO said on his pgm". —Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
break this up in to sections.. its a pain to read.
I suggest dividing this article into sections like every other wikipedia article or at least making some paragraphs as its very hard to read as it is now. - Tracer9999 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The second show with the Zimbabwean money
Some of that content was removed in this edit. The edit summary was "...close article with Oliver's "amazingly legal" blessings rather than some underexplained seed jokes...". So why not more fully explain it or leave it and just add the new content? Including what was sent in after the formation of the church and expanding the article seems like a good idea. Why remove the content? Thoughts McGeddon and others? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- That Oliver asked people to send his church "seed money" and some people sent actual seeds as a joke and he light-heartedly asked them not to send any more actual seeds just seemed like a minor and tangential joke, next to the actual money raised. Given the context of a comedy show, there are going to be plenty of tangential jokes around it - I couldn't see that this particular one added anything. --McGeddon (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The seeds and Zimbabwean money aren't relevant from an encyclopedic standpoint. Let's stick with the total money raised (so far, all we know is "thousands") and any IRS-related outcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. Though its funny what people send, it's not important to this article. Praise be, Praise be. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Blessings be upon you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. Though its funny what people send, it's not important to this article. Praise be, Praise be. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The seeds and Zimbabwean money aren't relevant from an encyclopedic standpoint. Let's stick with the total money raised (so far, all we know is "thousands") and any IRS-related outcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm, McGeddon, Muboshgu, Sbmeirow, and Bubba73 all think it should be out. What to do? I could start an edit war, flirt with 3RR, and rant at the edit warring notice board. I know. I will defer to community wishes. It's a honey of a plan! After all, when four people tell me I'm wrong, I'm probably wrong. Thanks for the feedback, folks. 
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm agreeing with Anna Frodesiak, the seed stuff is interesting, and is frankly starting to grow on me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- It might be worth saying something about the mix of responses, if the details are out there - did the show get lots of genuine donations and only a few joke ones, or does "thousands of envelopes and thousands of dollars" mean it was overwhelmingly joke responses with a couple of hundred people giving $10? --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I seed your point, but if I may plant the idea that sprouts-to-be, mailed in envelopes hard to see, could be cool as can be. Sheesh; I'm lapsing into Seussishness. My point is that there is a place in Wikipedia for interesting material, and the seed-stuff is interesting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't feel very strongly about it at all. I tend to think that it is too small of a detail to put in the article, but I'm not really opposed to it being there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm totally okay with whatever everyone wants to do. I'll leave it to others to decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't feel very strongly about it at all. I tend to think that it is too small of a detail to put in the article, but I'm not really opposed to it being there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I seed your point, but if I may plant the idea that sprouts-to-be, mailed in envelopes hard to see, could be cool as can be. Sheesh; I'm lapsing into Seussishness. My point is that there is a place in Wikipedia for interesting material, and the seed-stuff is interesting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- It might be worth saying something about the mix of responses, if the details are out there - did the show get lots of genuine donations and only a few joke ones, or does "thousands of envelopes and thousands of dollars" mean it was overwhelmingly joke responses with a couple of hundred people giving $10? --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Television series
By what definition is this not a television series?—Wavelength (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Oliver really the church's CEO?
"after receiving semen in the mail"
Predecessor
Importance
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll be taking a look at this article over the next coming days. :3 F4U (they/it) 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Freedom4U, just checking in- no rush if you're preoccupied. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Review done :) Seven day hold the nominator to address the following concerns. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Freedom4U, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Let me know if you think some more changes are needed- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Freedom4U, think I've addressed everything else. Are the unstruck ones not satisfactory yet? Or just an indication of progress? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- @MyCatIsAChonk Apologies for the delay. While I think there's definite room for expansion— particularly in the reception section, I don't believe that the article isn't broad enough for the GA criteria. The article doesn't fail in any other regard. The images are properly licensed and no copyvio was found. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Freedom4U, think I've addressed everything else. Are the unstruck ones not satisfactory yet? Or just an indication of progress? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Infobox
- Unnecessary piped link to John Oliver
- See below response
Lede
- Unnecessary piped link to John Oliver
- I think the wikilinks in the infobox and lead are necessary; it's the first time his name appears in the lead, and the first time his name appears in the infobox. Furthermore, he is the founder and CEO of the church, so why not link him? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what I meant! To clarify, the link currently is piped to "John Oliver (comedian)", which is unnecessary. Take a look at the link in source editor. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Freedom4U, Now I understand- fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what I meant! To clarify, the link currently is piped to "John Oliver (comedian)", which is unnecessary. Take a look at the link in source editor. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think the wikilinks in the infobox and lead are necessary; it's the first time his name appears in the lead, and the first time his name appears in the infobox. Furthermore, he is the founder and CEO of the church, so why not link him? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I have NPOV concerns about the word "expose". Perhaps "highlight" would be better, as that also better matches what is stated in the article's body.- Reworded. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
satirizing what ministries are allowed to do by law, essentially having no obligation to provide any care.
Rephrase- Done. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have a few other concerns about the lede, but I'd like to take a look after changes to the body are made, just so I can get a feeling for how well it reflects the article.
Creation
to get money in the form of donations
replace withfor donations
.- Done. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Televangelists like Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton often used the money to pay for private luxuries, but were still tax-exempt because of its recognition by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a church.
Only reference [4] mentions these two, and only in relation to the television segment mentioning them. Therefore this shouldn't be mentioned in wikivoice, but rather should stateIn the segment, Oliver criticized televangelists like Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton...
It looks like this is already mentioned further down in the paragraph. I would suggest deleting the sentence as redundant.- Fixed the above two. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
seeking donations from distressed people with promises of curing sickness through prayer, or of helping people of marginal means get out of credit card debt, by sending cash through the mail
This isn't mentioned in the article and should not be stated in wikivoice.- Rephrased and added different citations. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
in which Oliver sent cash through the mail, only to receive more solicitations from Tilton, with nothing substantial in return
- Only the Slate article mentions this correspondance in detail, statingTo illustrate how money-hungry these institutions are, Oliver joined televangelist Robert Tilton’s mailing list for $20. In seven months, Oliver received 26 letters—almost one per week—and paid a total of $319, receiving little more than some weird packets of oil and a tracing of the preacher’s foot in return.
I think the sentence should be rephrased.- Rephrased and replaced/added refs. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
"taking advantage of the open-ended IRS definition of the word 'church' and procuring a litany of tax breaks"
You can't just slapaccording to a report in The Washington Post
and call it a day. The article itself states that this is a quotation from the church's website (which should be mentioned if the quote is kept!) and I think this would work better paraphrased rather than quoted.- Paraphrased. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton are linked twice- Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Response and dissolution
- The two cites don't mention semen. I know the Rolling Stone and the Entertainment Weeklky cites mention semen, but they're only quoting from the show in the articles. Given the real possibility that, since its a comedy program, its not true, I would either put "allegedly" or remove the claim altogether.
- Rewrote and added citations. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is "The AU Review" a realiable source?
- I don't see anything suggesting it isn't; it's the only sources I could find that detailed what happened when you called the number, all the others just mentioned the existence of a toll free number. Regardless, I added a USAToday source that double backs that the number exists. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Alternet is a generally unreliable source per WP:RSP
- Replaced. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Last Week Tonight is linked twice
- Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Reaction
saw Oliver's stunt as being along the same lines as comedian Stephen Colbert's setting up of a 501(c)(4) called the "Colbert Super PAC"
Very awkwardly phrased. Could this be better ascompared Oliver's stunt to comedian Stephen Colbert's "Colber Super PAC", which Colbert used to test the limits of the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision.
Remove all of Oliver's megachurch, in contrast, is a way to test whether the IRS might view Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption as a tax-exempt organization as that's already been stated in the article.- The other reactions needs to rely less on quotes as well. Take a look at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections.
- Addressed the above two comments; if you think some more cutting is needed, let me know. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Spinoffs
- Although its not linked, I do believe mentioning
FreedomFromHealthCare.org
is still against external links policy.- Cut. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
External links
I'm curious as to why the original program is relegated to the bottom of the article, while the two spinoff episodes are embedded within the article?
- Mostly because I couldn't fit an external videos box near "Creation", but I see the confusion. Added a box under "Reactions". MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.