Talk:Hillsong Church

Phrasing of 'Controversies'

Might I add, hillsong is a money hungry CULT. :) Part of the Controversies section goes as follows:
Christian Theologian Jeremy Shum, who utilizes his background in statistics, Theology, and philosophy, addressing Pentecostalism [16] stating Christians should be more financially prosperous than their secular counterparts since they live by better ethic which leads to prosperity comparatively; and Australia consists of the 3% most richest people in the world, which meant within Australia, despite whether "God makes you rich" - you are rich, and only God gives you what you have; so implicitly he has made you rich.

This section is presented in a way which does not make it entirely clear that it is a view being expressed by someone, rather than being a statement of fact. I do not believe it should be placed in the article, unless the criticisms of Pell and Costello are also spelled out.

Also, the section above seen in bold does not make grammatical sense, in fact I don't understand what it is even trying to say! 121.210.30.118 (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ministries section

I flagged this as needing citations, with the comment that it read like original research. On re-reading it I think it's much worse - it actually reads like a marketing brochure for the church. It needs either serious cleaning up or to be removed. PollyWaffler (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs

I have added content and references to this section. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To the user who edited the 'beliefs' section without an account, if you wish to prove that Hillsong does not believe depression is the result of demonic possession then please provide evidence. The current statement to this effect is correctly referenced. If you believe the reference to be in error then please present the proof here. Just so you're informed on the issue, look at these stories of girls who actually attended the 'Mercy Ministries' program, and see what they were taught. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not correctly referenced - the reference is to an opinion piece. That should be reflected in the text - e.g. "according to some, teaching that mental illness is the product of demonic possession." I've added a "verify credibility" tag. StAnselm (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not simply an opinion piece, it was written by an ex-member of Hillsong, who can reasonably be expected to be aware of Hillsong's actual beliefs and teachings. Please demonstrate that this ex-member of Hillsong is an unreliable source. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it's published as an opinion piece, we cannot use it to verify facts. StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You have to be joking, right? In this case she's not giving her opinion, she's recounting her personal knowledge of Hillsong. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And "Depression is a supernatural spirit straight from the devil" does not imply mental illness is a result of demonic possession. StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, a demon is a supernatural spirit from the devil. What do you think they're referring to when they refer to a 'supernatural spirit straight from the devil'? --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy. They may well accept the distinction between demonic possession, and demonic oppression. I don't know. But obviously reference to "possesion" is the stronger statement, that isn't documented. And even if it is documented, it still isn't a reliable indicator of what Hillsong believes - i.e. they could have taught "oppression", but the person concerned heard "possession". StAnselm (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

None of this sounds remotely plausible. You're having to claim that first hand witnesses are completely wrong. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the first quote to reflect the fact that it is still an opinion. But is the reference to the "supernatural spirit straight from the devil" still on the website? StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's still on the Website isn't relevant. What's relevant is whether or not Hillsong still teach it. I'm still waiting for evidence that Hillsong no longer teach that depression and psychotic symptoms are the result of demonic possession. If that's not on the Website anymore, and if that indicates a change in their beliefs, then surely such a change has been documented somewhere. Have they said anything publicly about a change in their beliefs concerning demonic possession? --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still an opinion. If it's something someone heard at Hillsong, it doesn't mean it's official Hillsong teaching. Did they hear correctly? e.g. above distinction between oppression and possesion. StAnselm (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If a Hillsong member says they were taught it, who are you to say they weren't? Since it was on the Website as a Hillsong teaching, then it's classifiable as a Hillsong teaching. Until you have evidence that they've renounced that teaching, then it's classifiable as a Hillsong teaching. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalism

I'm concerned about labelling Hillsong beliefs "fundamentalist". WP:AVOID lists it as a word to avoid, and although there is a self-reference by Brian Houston, he calls his beliefs "fundamentalist" in what is obviously a very limited sense. Hence, we probably need to reword the Beliefs section. StAnselm (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:AVOID::* The word should be primarily used for those people or sects which are self-described fundamentalists (of which there are many).

Hillsong are self described Fundamentalists. This is relevant because it places their beliefs in their correct context. I haven't seen Houston define Hillsong's beliefs as Fundamentalist 'in what is obviously a very limited sense', and given that their literature and teaching reflects standard Pentecostal Fundamentalism, what's the issue? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The limited sense is, of course, "a fundamentalist in the sense that I believe that world view, for me, comes out of my belief in God, belief in his Word". Is it really standard Pentecostal Fundamentalism? Wouldn't that include, for example, abstinence from alcohol? I guess Pentecostal Fundamentalism isn't actually defined on Wikipedia - is it different to Fundamentalist Pentecostalism? StAnselm (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pentecostalism is a Fundamentalist Christian sect. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, let's write a very stern note to the Hillsong top brass telling them they must stop calling themselves fundamentalists, as it's demeaning. And while we're at it we'll ask them whether they're fundamentalist pentacostals or pentacostal fundamentalists. PiCo (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hillsong belong to the Assemblies Of God, a Fundamentalist denomination. There are no two ways about it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that the source to which you link says "ONE observer says... blah-blah-blah", and ANOTHER calls it "a fundamentalism with a difference (a funny way to describe fundamentalism, which by definition should not allow many differences). That makes it TWO people, only one of whom makes his opinion unambiguous, and you say "there are no two ways about it". Have you bothered to even half-heartedly look for a "second way", or is an opinion by one and a half persons - the only way?

I don't find the current wording of the article objectionable, just wanted to put in my 2 cents :) Latreia (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Both sources call the AOG's position 'fundamentalism', and so does the author of the book. It notes only slight differences from 'classic fundamentalism'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well none of this means that the AOG is "self-described" as 'fundamentalist' - it only means that others (rightly or wrongly) describe them this way. If you can find a reliable source for AOG's self-description of themselves as being fundamentalist then please do so - otherwise avoid the term or only use it when quoting from a source. At present - as far as the article goes - it is only your opinion / assessment / assumption / interpretation / assertion etc that this is an accurate word to describe them. Afterwriting (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said that AOG is 'self described' as fundamentalist. And the sources I provide are reliable sources according to Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. It is not simply my 'opinion / assessment / assumption / interpretation / assertion' that this is an accurate word to describe Hillsong's beliefs. I didn't give my opinion, I cited reliable sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(Written before my comment above.) This does not make the use of the term 'fundamentalist' acceptable for an encyclopedia article in the contexts you keep using it in. Your use of the term in these contexts is clearly POV. It is not within your capability to judge whether Hillsong's positions on abortion or homosexuality are or have been 'fundamentalist' just because Houston or the AOG are generally described this way - this is an encyclopedia article, not an opinion piece. If you want to justify your use of the term in connection with these issues you will need to provide reliable and verifiable sources to support this claim - otherwise the article will need to use more appropriately neutral terms such as 'traditional' or 'conservative'. Afterwriting (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your complaint is. None of this has anything to do with POV. The fact is that AOG churches are Fundamentalist. Hillsong is a Fundamentalist church. The views held by Hillsong on these issues are Fundamentalist as a result. Terms such as 'traditional' or 'conservative' mean nothing in this context. Traditional according to whom? Amanda Lohrey's work 'Voting for Jesus' (2008), actually contrasts Hillsong teaching and practice with what she calls 'traditional Christians' ("Too much singing and not enough thinking," she pronounced, echoing the criticism of Hillsong made by many traditional Christians', page 23). Conservative as opposed to what? By identifying the beliefs correctly as Fundamentalist, the reader knows that Hillsong holds the typical Fundamentalist view on these doctrines, which Hillsong does.

Hillsong's stand against abortion is fundamentalist (Lohrey interviews Hillsong members on the topic of abortion on page 71, and finds that they oppose it). Houston 'says he's fundamentalist on this issue - he doesn't believe in evolution', and that's what is taught. There's already a reference in the article which declares clearly 'Homosexuals are, of course, unwelcome, but Houston says he's not a Fred Nile-type fanatic on these matters' (Sydney Morning Herald, 'The lord's profits', January 30, 2003). Could you explain exactly what the issue is? Are you claiming that Hillsong is not a Fundamentalist church? Are you claiming that AOG is not Fundamentalist? Are you claiming that Hillsong's stand on abortion and homosexuality are not Fundamentalist? Let's be clear about your complaint please. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My so-called "complaint" is stated quite clearly in my previous comments. I do not know whether it is correct to describe Hillsong as "fundamentalist" - but whether it is or isn't it is not justified to simply label their views on homosexuality and abortion in this way. Would you also describe the Roman Catholic views on the same issues as "fundamentalist"? My complaint is that you are using the term in ways that express your opinion. Your opinion might be correct but that's not the point. The article needs to be written in a more neutral manner and the way "fundamentalist" is being used in the article does not do this. So it will need appropriate rewriting. Afterwriting (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you haven't explained anything. This has nothing to do with my opinion. It has to do with Hillsong being a member of the Fundamentalist AOG, and their views on homosexuality and abortion being Fundamentalist. I have provided links with evidence proving this. Exactly what is the issue? It seems you just don't want Hillsong associated with the word 'Fundamentalist'. Is that it? --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not it at all - and you have not "proved" anything. All you seem to be doing is making the assertion that Hillsong's views on certain issues are automatically fundamentalist because the AOG is generally understood as being such. You don't know this is true, you are simply assuming it is true - and this is not good enough in an encyclopedia article. Also, Houston's comments describing himself as a fundamentalist do not necessarily support your interpretation that he's a fundamentalist in the way you seem to understand the term. You really seem to be following false logic in your comments. Please edit the article in ways that don't venture into personal commentary. Afterwriting (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No I am not assuming anything. The AOG is Fundmentalist. Its creed constitutes Fundamentalism. Hillsong is an AOG church. It does not differ from the AOG creed at all. I have provided statements from Hillsong's own Website and interviews with Hillsong members defining its stance on abortion and homosexuality, and that stance is Fundamentalist. You haven't addressed this at all. Houston's comments describing himself as a fundamentalist support exactly my understanding of what fundamentalism is. His comments on homosexuality and abortion are likewise explicit statements of the Fundamentalist position. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Taiwan boi is determined to keep editing the article in accordance with his (?) personal views whilst asserting that they are based on "facts" even when adequate evidence for this isn't provided. The whole thrust of these edits seems to indicate some kind of personal agenda regarding Hillsong which he is determined to use this article to promote. Please edit the article in accordance with Wikipedia policies and encyclopedia standards - and not opinions, interpretations or unsupported assertions. Afterwriting (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think someone needs to read WP:AGF. I edited the article in accordance with Wikipedia policies and encyclopedia standards, not opinions, interpretations or unsupported assertions. I have cited reliable sources defining AOG as Fundamentalist, and Hillsong is an AOG church. I have provided statements from Hillsong's own Website and interviews with Hillsong members defining its stance on abortion and homosexuality, and that stance is Fundamentalist. You haven't addressed this at all. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You most certainly DON'T edit this article according to the Wikipedia policies. You obviously don't understand the policy on using "fundamentalist" which clearly states that it should only be used when SELF-DESCRIBED - and NOT from other sources. The quotation from Houston is NOT saying that he is a fundamentalist in the way you are defining it. Your edits are completely irresponsible. Afterwriting (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The quotation from Houston is indeed saying he is a fundamentalist in the way I am defining it. This is hardly surprising since he belongs to a Fundamentalist AOG church. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And let me also make it quite clear that I do not "assume good faith" regarding your edits as it is seems to be clearly obvious that your edits are being made in bad faith and are contrary to various Wikipedia policies. The fact that you don't seem to realise this is mind-boggling! Afterwriting (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't identified any violations of Wikipedia policy (I have already demonstrated that Houston describes himself as Fundamentalist), you've made repeated accusations of bad faith, and you have deliberately altered this article in a manner apologetic to Hillsong. Would you like to explain your relationship to Hillsong? --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have clearly identifed your various violations of Wikipedia policies - again and again! So what the hell are you talking about? The fact that you seem incapable of recognising your disruptive behaviour - and your clear breaches of the policies - is quite extraordinary, as is your totally absurd claim that I'm somehow connected to Hillsong, which I most certainly am not! You obviously have no idea of what is required by various Wikipedia policies yet you persist in your disruptive edits based on what appears to be your personal antipathy towards Hillsong. You also have no idea of legal issues if you insist that the various accusations made against Hillsong are established facts. Any reasonable intelligent person with any understanding of law knows that the status of these accusations is that they can only be accurately called allegations - and that they MUST be described as such in this article. Your edits are totally irresponsible and unethical. Afterwriting (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Guglielmucci situation

I have moved the Guglielmucci situation to the "Music" section [1]. A fraud on the part of an individual who has deceived not only his churches (Planetshakers and Edge included, it was not only about Hillsong), but even his own family, is not appropriate to be mentioned as a whole section on an article about a church. Hillsong is in this case one of the deceived parties, since his actions have tainted the reputation of the whole church who had invited him to lead worship on their album. The album will have to be revoked. This is a situation that concerns a song on the album, and it is appropriate there. This gives enough visibility to the situation on this article while not misplacing emphases. Latreia (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that giving the Gugielmucci situation a whole paragraph in the Music section is a little bit of undue weight isn't it? I mean of all the albums they've put out through the years one incident happens and its made to seem like its the only thing they're about. I'm merging this paragraph into the albums article. If other editors disagree please let me know. I will respect consensus. Ltwin (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hillsong united with hearts.jpg

The image Image:Hillsong united with hearts.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

'Allegedly' inappropriate psychological advice

The reference quoted demonstrates that inappropriate psychological advice was given:

'The program has set alarm bells ringing for psychologists such as Dianna Kenny, an adolescent development expert at the University of Sydney. "They are essentially saying you are not appropriate as you are and we're going to show you how to be appropriate," Professor Kenny said.

"We don't have control of our physical characteristics. To emphasise that takes away from the autonomy of people as individual human beings. That runs completely contrary to what we know about adolescent development.

"We do want our young people to feel good about themselves, but what [they] need is help from professional counsellors."'

That is not simply an allegation, that is a fact declared by professional psychologists. And is anyone going to seriously suggest that Mercy Ministries did not give inappropriate psychological advice when it talked about demons? These are not mere allegations, these are facts determined by professional psychologists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That is actually an allegation. Articles need to adhere to WP:NPOV it would actually be improved if some of the subsection were removed in written into more a balanced prose. Take for example the Criticism and controversy has no prose just subsections most of which should be combined, with a subsection covering programs in schools. I suggest that it being separate as it current is doesnt comply with WP:UNDUE. Gnangarra 05:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See below. It is not an allegation. You are applying the legal use of the term to statements made outside a legal context. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct - the status of such comments are correctly described as "allegations", not as "facts" - regardless of who made them. Unless there is a legal conviction they MUST be referred to as allegations regardless of whether the advice actually was innappropriate. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of law will know that such comments are, at present, allegations and not established fact. Afterwriting (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment only applies to criminal charges. These statements were not made in the context of criminal charges. When a professional psychologist gives their professional assessment of psychological advice by non-professionals, that is not merely an 'allegation', that is a professional assessment which is given as a statement of fact. But do show me where the psychologists said 'We allege Hillsong has given inappropriate psychological advice'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've just found this:

...Mercy Ministries, an allegedly pro-life and anti-gay charity...

Again, 'allegedly'? This is blatantly misleading. Look:

SX News: 'Meanwhile Executive Director of Mercy Ministries Peter Irvine – who was a founder of Gloria Jean’s – said the charity is a Christian-based organisation that provides a residential program for young women at risk or with “life-controlling” issues and confirmed its non-acceptance of GLBTIQ lifestyle and abortions. “We don’t support the gay lifestyle,” he told SX.

A "statement of fact" is, legally, an 'allegation'. Unless the "statements of fact" are formally 'proved' - by the appropriate legal or professional process - then their status remains that of allegations. How much clearer does this have to be for you?! Afterwriting (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep referring to statements made in the context of criminal charges, which does not apply here. It is not merely 'alleged' that Mercy Ministries has an anti-abortion and anti GLBTIQ policy, it is a fact which has been confirmed by the director. The only evidence which needs to be presented to substantiate this fact is a quote from the director. A quote was provided. This is not an allegation. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'logic' (if that's what it's meant to be) of your argument is all over the place and, frankly, doesn't make much sense. I have never made any comments regarding allegations regarding Mercy Ministries and have no idea whatsoever of why you are mentioning this. I can only assume that English isn't your first language as you seem to have difficulties understanding what other editors (not just myself) are explaining to you. The quote that you provided does not - by itself - clearly substantiate the comments, although it may support it. But, yet again (!), I need to remind you that this is an encyclopedia article and the burden of proof for contentious comments is considerably higher than what you are offering. Afterwriting (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only are you not reading my posts properly, you've forgotten what you yourself wrote. You claim you never made any comments regarding allegations regarding Mercy Ministries, and have no idea why I'm mentioning it? Totally untrue. When I pointed out the inappropriate use of the word 'allegedly' in the sentence 'allegedly pro-life and anti-gay charity', you defended it saying 'A "statement of fact" is, legally, an 'allegation'. Unless the "statements of fact" are formally 'proved' - by the appropriate legal or professional process - then their status remains that of allegations'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to try and understand what on earth you have been getting at, I have discovered that the "alleged" comment used about Mercy Ministries was, in fact, actually part of the copyright material which has now been removed. In other words, the writer of this book used the word in reference to Mercy Ministries. So, therefore, if you have an argument on this matter you need to take it up with the author of the book (whoever that is) as it has nothing to do with any of my edits. Afterwriting (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To remind you again, when I pointed out the inappropriate use of the word 'allegedly' in the sentence 'allegedly pro-life and anti-gay charity', you defended it saying 'A "statement of fact" is, legally, an 'allegation'. Unless the "statements of fact" are formally 'proved' - by the appropriate legal or professional process - then their status remains that of allegations'. Since this is not an 'allegation', it is going back in, along with other information you removed. You might be unaffiliated with Hillsong, but you are clearly not unbiased with regard to them or this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And to remind you - AGAIN - I have NOT made any specific comment about this particular statement - which, as I've already informed you, was actually in the COPYRIGHT MATERIAL - so the allegation comment was made by the author of the book - NOT BY ME!!! I have only ever made general - and accurate - comments about what allegations are and what they aren't. Any further irresponsible edits by you will be reverted. Afterwriting (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, if the material was included by the author was the book... since he is the rightful owner of the text, he'd be fully able to release excerpts from it under the GFDL.

It's only a copyright violation if you post something you don't own. You are in fact arguing for a reason not to remove the material. -Deriksmith (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Copyright Material

I have removed most of the 'Criticism and controversy' section. Thanks to a recent edit we now know that virtually all the 'Criticism and controversy' section has been plagiarised virtually verbatim from a published and copyrighted book - in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. There also seems to be good reason to suspect that the material was included in the article by that book's author - but this is only an 'allegation', not a 'fact'! Afterwriting (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That was completely unnecessary. Rewrite, don't slash and burn. Your edits over the last week have been focused on removing as much criticism of Hillsong as possible, and now you've removed practically all of it. It is difficult to see how this constitutes good faith editing, but you're welcome to explain yourself. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright material MUST be removed immediately as per Wikipedia policies. It is not my responsibility to rewrite this section - it is my responsibility to immediately remove copyright material. If you want to rewrite this section, then go ahead and do so - but don't include copyright material. Once again you have demonstrated your considerable lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies. Unlike you, I am following Wikipedia policies - so it is not me who needs to explain myself. And let me remind you that I have no association whatsoever with Hillsong. For the record, I happen to be an Anglo-Catholic and I have little sympathy with anything that Hillsong represents. Once again I need to ask you to respect and follow Wikipedia policies - not your own agenda! Afterwriting (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am following Wikipedia policies, one of which is to edit rather than to remove wholesale. You have instead been slashing and burning this article, cutting out parts which you don't like (specifically the criticism of Hillsong). I raised no objection to the removal of copyrighted material, I raised an objection to you removing the entire section without even attempting to improve it. Improving it is your responsibility as an editor of Wikipedia. The policy of Wikipedia is to improve, namely to edit rather than to remove. This is explained in the official Wikipedia editing policy. Note there 'preserve information' and 'major changes'. Obviously copyrighted material is exempt from the 'preserve information' rule, but not all of what was written was copyrighted, and you didn't seek to preserve any information at all. You only had to edit, not remove. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are getting more and more absurd and bizarre. All this nonsense about "slashing and burning" and "cutting out parts which you don't like" is absolute and complete crap! You are now falsely claiming that you "raised no objection to the removal of copyrighted material" after you had clearly previously objected to just that - as ALL the material that I earlier removed was copyrighted material or included with it. I didn't remove any of the criticism of Hillsong that wasn't in the copyrighted material. The copyrighted material had to be removed - IMMEDIATELY! I am not required by Wikipedia policies to add other comments to replace removed copyright material. And I did not "remove the entire section" as - yet again - you falsely state. Your false comments about me and my responsible editing are very tedious - and I expect you to cease making them. My edits have absolutely nothing to do with my personal views of Hillsong - but I doubt that this is so for you. Afterwriting (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not 'absolute crap'. Even before you removed the copyrighted material, you were repeatedly removing my edits to the 'Controversy' section. I have never raised any objection to you removing the copyrighted material, I objected to you failing to rewrite the section instead of simply taking out practically everything which was there, including information which was not copyrighted. As I said, I raised an objection to you removing the entire section without even attempting to improve it. Improving it is your responsibility as an editor of Wikipedia. The policy of Wikipedia is to improve, namely to edit rather than to remove. This is explained in the official Wikipedia editing policy. Note there 'preserve information' and 'major changes'. Obviously copyrighted material is exempt from the 'preserve information' rule, but not all of what was written was copyrighted, and you didn't seek to preserve any information at all. You only had to edit, not remove.

• Comment Afterwriting you have removed material that is cited to various media outlets and claim that after a recent edit you know that the section has been plagiarized from a book. Please provide a diff of the edit that introduced the material and the source. I will then restore the article back to a prior version, as per WP:COPYVIO. Also note that if the person who inserted the material is the copyright holder(author) then it isnt a copyright violation. Additionally if an editor is repeatable adding copyright material they may be blocked, as may an editor who is deliberately disrupting Wikipedia. Gnangarra 12:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening in this matter. On 27 October an editor called Springnuts edited the article and provided a reference link (the reference number was 41 in this version of the article) to a book page on a Google Books Search website. It was then immediately obvious that most of the 'Criticism and controversy' section in the Hillsong article was taken - mostly word for word - from this book, 'Church Schism & Corruption' (page 361). I do not know when or by who this book material was included in the article. I hope that you know how to easily discover this. Afterwriting (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking back through the article history, there has been a lot of throw away accounts adding removing editting the section. In March and April there were a number of edits to the controversy section, but the substance appears form before then, some of the edits appear to be such that they change the wording to resemble that of the source. anyway out of time tonight to check further back as to where it was introduced. Gnangarra 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this is page 361 of the book 'Church Schism & Corruption'. As you can see, although much of that page was reproduced in this article, there are also sections which were in the original article which were not taken from that copyrighted material:

• 'In 2005, however, Tim Costello commented, "I'm actually very positive about their music, their attraction of young people, and I pay Pastor Brian Houston credit for recognising that to link a belief in Jesus to financial gain was a distortion of the gospel". [34] On 7 July 2008, Tim Costello gave the official opening address at the 2008 Hillsong Conference at Acer Arena, Sydney Olympic Park.[35]'
• 'a significant amount of the grant was used to pay wages of staff that were members of the church'

The claim that this material was removed because of copyright violation is clearly untrue. Furthermore, the section 'Aspects of Hillsong's teachings have been criticised by non-Pentecostals, particularly its prosperity teachings which have been publicly criticised by prominent Baptist minister Tim Costello[32] and Cardinal George Pell, the Roman Catholic Archbisop of Sydney.[33]' is not word for word copyrighted material, but is a conflation and slight edit of two sentences in the copyrighted work. There's no reason why it couldn't have been reworded. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's not exactly "word for word" at that point - but that is only because I had previously edited these comments for improved grammar and sentence structure. Before this it was word for word from the book - and, at that time, that source was unknown by me. Afterwriting (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well there you go, what was stopping you editing the rest? --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't know? I guess I actually have a life! Do you seriously think that I have all day to sit around rewriting great slabs of this article after discovering that it is plagiarised from copyright material? The copyright material gets removed first - any rewriting happens later. Afterwriting (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You're changing your tune again. Previously you claimed you had no responsibility to edit or rewrite (I referred you to the Wikipedia policy which says otherwise). You clearly edited the article previously, so there was nothing stopping you editing it further. Given the amount of time you have spent on this article it is clearly important to you, and you'll take the time to make edits you consider necessary. So don't give me that 'I guess I actually have a life' stuff. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A few facts

Afterwriting, before you go hacking my edit about yet again (a number of your edits were unnecessary style choices, but I can live with them), please note:

• Financial mismanagement was proved, that's why the government withdrew the money
• The government withdrew the money specifically from Hillsong (your removal of 'from Hillsong' makes no sense)
• Hillsong's teachings have been controversial, and remain so
• The advice given by the 'Shine' program was identified as inappropriate by 'teachers, adolescent developmental experts and parents groups', so your removal of the word 'experts' needs to be explained
• The advice given by the 'Shine' program was identified as inappropriate, so there is no reason for you to remove this from fact (I even placed it in quotes to show it was a quote)
• Why did you change the title 'Involvement with Mercy Ministries' to 'Mercy Ministries'? The whole controversy was over Hillsong's involvement with Mercy Ministries
• Hillsong's evangelism methods are controversial, and continue to raise controversy, so why did you remove the word 'controversial'?

There is an obvious pattern to your edits, and it has nothing to do with correcting NPOV. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hillsong is an Australian church and so Australian English should be used in this article. Can you please revert your recent conversion to American English per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English? Also, I must say that I've been watching this page for awhile now and I'm really quite troubled by what you've been doing here and some of your comments seem really out-of-whack with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly your comments above about fundamentalism. I don't have time to address all this properly now but I will try to come back in the next day or two. But in the meanwhile, please don't change spelling in Australian articles to American spelling, as you did in this edit [2]. I will also note that the edit summary there is rather BITEy and POINTy - no one needs your consent before making edits. Sarah 09:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I use Phrase Express because I'm in a country which uses US spelling, and I forget it always corrects my Australian spelling (I'm actually Australian). I'll try to remember to turn it off. Other than that, you haven't identified any comments of mine which are 'really out-of-whack with Wikipedia policies and guidelines'. In fact I am the only one who has appealed legitimately to Wikipedia policies, and linked to them. No one needs my consent to make edits. But they do need to explain themselves when they make edits. Afterwriting has consistently made edits to this article without explaining himself, and refuses to discuss them. This being the case, my only recourse is to change his edits once more, ask him to explain himself once more, and if that fails move up to the next stage in the process of conflict resolution. Let's see how far I have to go before he starts talking. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I see my edits were reverted once more, without discussion. Will other editors please discuss their reasons for reverting here, and address the points I have made? Simply alleging 'NPOV' without any rational argument or discussion is invalid. It's a fact that Hillsong was found guilty of financial mismanagement. Hillsong's point of view is represented in that section by their own statement on the matter, so where's the problem? It's a fact that Hillsong has been criticized regularly, ever year in fact for the last 5 years or more, by media, politicians, Christian leaders, community groups, and former members. It's a fact that Hillsong's theological teachings have been (and still are), controversial. I have edited the article further, adding even more references to Hillsong's viewpoint. I have contributed more to this section than anyone else, and I have been scrupulous in referencing accurately every single statement. In fact I have added around 40 reliable sources to this section. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It also is an even more OBVIOUS fact that you have a theological AXE to grind with this church and thus are not an objective actor. 68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrator assistance requested

I would greatly appreciate it if any administrators who may be keeping a watch on this article could help clarify the various policies especially relevant to the criticism section. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You could try discussion right here with me first. If you believe that I have violated any Wikipedia policies with my edits, please list them. I have asked you this repeatedly. To date you have been unable to identify any violated policies. I have provided comprehensive references for my edits, all of which are valid. You keep making unsubstantiated claims of NPOV edits, which you fail to support with any evidence when requested to do so. You have repeatedly made edits which are clearly motivated, such as removing factual statements and altering section titles so that they no longer describe the facts in the section they head up. You give no valid reason for your edits. For example, you changed the section title 'Involvement With Mercy Ministries' to 'Mercy Ministries', despite the fact that the section is not about Mercy Ministries, it's specifically about Hillsong's involvement with Mercy Ministries. You changed 'Financial Mismanagement' to 'Financial management', when the section describes proven financial mismanagement. Your title therefore contradicts the section it heads up, representing the events as merely 'financial management', and removing any reference to the proven mismanagement. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but if you need a 3rd opinion on edits relating to wikipedia official policies, I'm happy to help. I have made a lot of edits (and had a lot of discussions) relating to interpretation and enforcement of wikipedia policies (especially WP:N, WP:OR & WP:RS) Ashmoo (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I would welcome that. The sooner the better. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of the biased hate has been removed from this article. I don't know why it's a controversy that they are involved with a COFFEE company. Too much Caffeine with their Catechism? haha I did note that the someone tried to SMEAR the coffee company as well. What a joke. On the whole, considering Wikipedia's INGLORIOUS history in addressing groups/individuals that run counter to liberal orthodoxy, I'd have to say the Hillsong article is fairly balanced. Of course, given the evanescent nature of any article on Wik, I reserve the right to withdraw this approbation at any time! 68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits by IP address 203.94.168.98

The edits made by IP address 203.94.168.98 where they removed large slabs of text - this person appears to be usng a Hillsong proxy server.

See http://truehits.net/2005/09/22/h0013338_20050922_1.php?Web=&cate&order&v=#ATTOP

In TOP Proxy Server Name - 203.94.168.98 or 1.0 proxy.hillsong.net:8080 (squid/2.5.STABLE4)

-- Newtaste (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"This person appears to be usng a Hillsong proxy server!!!" OMG...For shame! Do only people who HATE Hillsong have the right to edit this article? I would think that people most familiar with the church ought to at least have a chance to contribute or is that 'against wikipedia policy' too? lol 68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone can contribute, but you are mistaken if you think that being a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means everyone has a "right" to edit Wikipedia in the way they choose. If you look at the first line of this talk section, you can see they removed "large slabs of text", which is not some trivial tidying-up or corrections. It is absolutely against Wiki policy to make edits where there is a conflict of interest, eg where legitimately referenced material is removed anonymously and without any discussion, by someone acting on behalf of the article's subject. See WP:COI. Similarly it is important that the article is balanced, so it certainly should not be people who "HATE Hillsong" (and are therefore biased against it) who edit it. Halsteadk (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

DMCA takedown requests?

There's been some allegation that HC requests videos be removed from youTube that are critical of them... but that's always a dicy issue, because such videos may contain excerpts or quotes that HC could claim ownership over.

But I noticed today that Hillsong apparently issued a DMCA takedown order for Grant Morrison's speech at DisinfoCon 2000. I've seen this speech. It doesn't even mention Hillsong. It doesn't use photos or video Hillsong could own-- it's 50 minutes of a guy talking at a podium with no cuts and no slides behind him. (It's really just baffling, they seem to be claiming ownership on a completely fraudulent basis in order to remove a video that isn't even vaguely related to them. But he does spend a fair amount of time instructing the audience in what HC would consider witchcraft...)

(Full disclosure-- that's my blog. I discovered the takedown while composing an entry on a mostly unrelated topic and decided to make the post just about it.) -Deriksmith (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I reverted the deletion of two sources.[3] Both appear to be reliable, secondary sources. Copies of both are hosted by what appear to be self-published sites. If they do not have permission to host copyrighted materials then we shouldn't link to those copies. However links are not necessary in references. A proper citation, with the name of the publication, the article name, and the publication date, is sufficient for verification purposes.   Will Beback  talk  17:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless the original articles can be linked to, we should not include text from them in the article or the footnotes, as they are not verified and could have been altered by the self-published sites.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The text can be verified in a library or by visiting the publishers' website. WP:V does not require a live hyperlink to the source. Is there any reason to doubt that the copies posted are true to their ultimate sources? The BRW article, which is in a PDF at the link, appears to be an official copy.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)