Talk:Live Prayer

To do

1. Fix grammar & spelling
2. Add more references
3. Categories
4. Add "criticism" section --David in DC 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

...

It is preferable to add balance to each section rather than putting all criticism in one section and leaving the rest of it rather POV and promotional as it presently is. Even the "Controversy" section is POV in promoting the minister by saying "Keller claims to deliver the truth of the Bible without modification even when people may be offended." Edison 16:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You could make some changes? --PEAR (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't totse mentioned on here? A lot of people from totse were prank calling live prayer and bill threatened to sue totse until warweed, a totse mod, explained everything to bill. i believe that it used to be on the page, so someone must've deleted it. probably those tards from rotten eggs or 4chan.

Guest list

For now, I don't see why the guest list should be removed. As for Joe Redner, I'm pretty sure he has appeared on the show and I'm looking for a source right now. --RucasHost 06:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have found a reference for Joe Redner appearing on Live Prayer. Here it is:

"On my television program one night in May 2004, I deviated from my normal format which is to take live phone calls from viewers, giving them Biblical counsel for their problems and praying for them. I had as my guest Joe Redner, a Tampa businessman who is also the long-time owner of a famous strip club in Tampa. My purpose for having Joe on my program was to allow him to share his beliefs and why he feels owning and operating an adult establishment is acceptable. I am well aware that Joe has been debating this issue legally and morally for over 30 years and has his "talking points" down pat. I am also very aware that he views Christians as his enemy and the people who are "out to get him.""

Live Prayer Daily Devotional for June 1st 2005; Accessed 08-23-2007

--RucasHost 06:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the guests & live audiences sections

However, I'm posting them here so content can be salvaged from them and possibly added to the article later.

Guests

Occasionally, Keller has a guest on the show to talk with him about a specific subject — in addition to accepting calls from viewers. Past guests have included:

• Mary Joye Bexley, a gospel singer who came on the show to discuss spousal abuse.
• Ron Rosson, a minister, musician, and long time friend of Keller.
• Ed Decker, a former temple Mormon and member of the Melchizedek priesthood who is now a born-again Christian who speaks out against Mormonism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• Jack Hartman, an author of Christian books.
• Joe Valenzuela, a financial adviser.
• Julie Shematz, a minister who helps adult entertainers.
• Joe Redner, an admitted homosexual and strip club owner in Tampa, Florida.

Live audiences

Four times a year, Keller invites viewers to come to the CW44 studio where Live Prayer is filmed and watch the show in person.

--RucasHost 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Proposed split

Azumanga1 (talk · contribs) has proposed splitting the History section into a new article, Bill Keller (televangelist). [1]

Personally, I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not. On one hand it could make things more confusing for readers since the topics are so inter-related, but on the other hand it could paradoxically make things less confusing for readers by allowing information about the two distinct topics to be views in two different articles.

What do the rest of you think?

--RucasHost 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A biography of the man behind the program should be on its own page so that users can quickly and easily see what kind of a character he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.12.80 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed this paragraph:

Invitation to become a Christian

Every episode of Live Prayer AM and the old late-night show ends with Keller giving his viewers an invitation to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour and reciting a sinner's prayer they can copy. Finally, he asked those who accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour that night to email his ministry so he can send them a book — free of charge — with information on Christianity & the Bible.

To begin with, it's unsourced. I'm not sure that secondary a source for that is even likely to exist, but it might. In as much as it reports on the primary source, the word choice his problematic as it endorses the Christian position, and is likely to offend those of other faiths. Also, I don't think this should be in its own section, as it is just a description of the normal course of the show. Can we tone the language down a little, please? ←Ben^B4 11:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could be offended by that section, please explain. --RucasHost 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The choice of words "accept/ed Jesus Christ as their lord and savior" is favorably biased jargon because it has special meaning to believers and wouldn't ordinarily be used by non-believers, like putting "PBUH" after Muhammad's name, which was decided against. Can we say "become/became a Christian" instead? ←Ben^B4 18:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we cannot. In fact that is more biased. Not all "Christians" believe that accepting Jesus Christ is how you become a Christian. For example, Mormons (which are "Christian" according to the Wikipedia article, even though I personally don't consider them to be) have something else and Catholics believe that you become a Catholic through baptism (whereas most protestants use some sort of declaration of faith instead, like the sinner's prayer on the show). --RucasHost 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the old paragraph until we can come to a consensus here. --RucasHost 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It says he's evangelical in the first line of the article. Are people going to be confused by "become a Christian"? ←Ben^B4 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but it's offensive to Catholics for Wikipedia to assume that's how you become a Christian. --RucasHost 22:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill Keller needs his own page

Keller may be better known than his programs. I think this page would be better named as a Bill Keller page, with Live Prayer as a sub-section. It still reads as a bit of a puff piece. I became aware of his existence as a result of his video to Osama bin Laden. This video will raise his profile.

What denomination ordained him?

Liberty University - The deceased Jerry Falwell's School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.74.59 (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Robert1947 21:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know LU ordained people. I thought it just granted degrees? --profg 18:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He has his own page: Bill Keller (televangelist). —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Live Prayer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This is the review page. I am opening it now as the nominator has stated he will be around for the GA review and so I will add review comments later. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have fixed some of the inline references. However, the online sources all need publisher, access date, and author, if there is one.
• All references must meet WP:RS. Some of them seem to fail. e.g. http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=43286 - this seems to be a reader comment page.

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Writing is sloppy - I have removed some verbiage and duplication, here [[2]] and here [[3]], but there is plenty more - and here [[4]]. Not sure of the current usage in the USA but in British English "Evangelical" and "Evangelistic" have distinct and different meanings - see line 1 of the article. Good article? I would say not. Springnuts (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• I thank you for adding to the article and have to agree that this is not a GA. The nominator of the article is not working on it and does not seem available.

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Article is poorly written with choppy, short sentences b (MoS): References are incorrectly formatted with missing publishers, dates etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Seems to be factually accurate b (citations to reliable sources): There are may good references c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Needs to fill out the content b (focused): yes

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article has potential, as there are many good references. However the writing is poor. Sorry!

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this a good article!

As you can see I've been doing a fair bit of work on this article. My intention is to make it more informative, with more critical commentary, and closer to NPOV. I am also planning to release a not yet created but relevant image into the public domain for inclusion on this article and add an entirely new, meaningful section. As I am a fairly new user I welcome your feedback and hope you will join me in improving this article. --Webley455 (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. In case my title didn't convey this to you, when I am done the bulk of my editing (I'll be done before January 10th) I intend to resubmit this article for GA review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webley455 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominating for good article again

I've done a big copy-edit on the Television show section, tried to reduce the size of the introductory section, and removed a gratuitous (one sentence) History section. I've also generally tried to clean up this article wherever I can. I'm nominating it for good article status again. --A1Motors (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Live Prayer/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Failedwizard (talk · contribs) 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Looks generally very well written, nice rhymn to the sentences, generaly pleasent and easy to read. I'd like drop the "Live Prayer interactive CD-ROM" section as very adverty.... I would also say that the website section is overley sectioned - would you like to try it one section of prose?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	As a quick development point - the lead does not current summarise anything about the Controversy section, and also includes "Gold for souls" information that is not included in the rest of the article.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Formatting of sources is generally quite nice, but there are some overrefrenced parts - does "Bill Keller later clarified his statements saying he was speaking on a spiritual topic, not a political one.[31][32][33][34][35]" need all those references?
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are a *lot* of liveprayer sources... certainly they all need a link (most have, some don't) but also I think we should probably have a search to see if they can be replaced with more NPOV sources...
	2c. it contains no original research.	Currently fine with this, not sure if something will pop out though...
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some development points maybe the issues around Jamie_Hubley should be addressed... I also need to do a bit of a google...
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Occasionally has a bit of a wander, but fine generally.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Really pleasantly surprised at how NPOV this was.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Again, thought this would be a vandalism magnet but it's fine.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Hmm, I'm not really happy with the fair use rational on either of the images - but I sympathise with the struggle... I'd lose the website screenshot - but happy to go for a second opinion if you would like?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine...
	7. Overall assessment.	I was very pleasantly surprised by this article, there's a list of things to change but not as many as I thought - chiefly I'd like to see some improvement in the references (less liveprayer), the images, and there's still some promotional aspects to the article. But it certainly could satisfy the standard with a bit of work...

Hmm, embarrassingly - I did not say how long I put this on hold for - should have been a week in the first place, but as I forgot to mention that I think it's probably fairest if the week starts nowFailedwizard (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but there has been no response...:(

Notability Guidelines

There continue to be unverifiable resources and original research in this article, despite the above improvements, which have clearly been removed or in some way disregarded. If the article does not receive accurate, secondary sources, I nominate the article for deletion. I do however believe Bill Keller should have his own page however, given the large amount of available sources. I have placed Template:notability in the article.Taylor2646 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Live Prayer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222053332/http://www.b92.net:80/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=43286 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=43286
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/world/north-america/article2893982.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927090348/http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/252/11672?bah=.php to http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/252/11672?bah=.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.charismamag.com/articles/index.php?id=10733
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.saintsalive.com/who.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226035859/http://www.local6.com:80/news/14128623/detail.html to http://www.local6.com/news/14128623/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)