Talk:Hillsong Church

Neutrality Issues

The controversy section is 1/3 of the content, WP:CSECTION states that articles should avoid even having a controversy/criticsm section. I'm not sure what to do with this section of the article, any changes I make to make it more concise and give it less weight so that it doesn't continue to weigh the articles bias towards negativity have in the past been reverted quite quickly.

The entire section exists to list negative viewpoints, which is why WP:CSECTION states that should be avoided. It has gotten to the point where it is merely a list of gripes ala WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with some sections being about non-issues/rumors

• Criticism of finances -- A tabloid claim that a crime happened, was then refuted by the Government and the people claimed to be victimised.
• Alleged Vote Stacking in Australian Idol -- A claim that a TV show was rigged, of which the primary source is a defunct tabloid TV show Today Tonight.
• Stance on homosexuality and same-sex marriage -- Doesn't even mention any controversy, just invites the reader to create one in their mind.
• Mark Driscoll appearance -- A man was going to speak at a conference until he was discovered as a misogynist, then he didn't, and was interviewed about the misogyny instead.
• Carl Lentz rise and fall -- Is OK, other than the two quotes that exist there to provide commentary on how bad the church is. Yes, it's sourced, but WP:BALANCE. Additionally it probably belongs in a section dedicated to Hillsong NYC, rather than under "Controversies" for the reasons listed in WP:CSECTION.

Please let me know your thoughts. L32007 (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to merge the content into the history. We only include what RSes state. If this is what people are writing about (and readers want to see it) then we include it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I read a few of the sources for the Australian Idol section of the article, and the sourcing appears very selectively used. This source https://web.archive.org/web/20090221015416/http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0%2C23663%2C22558938-10229%2C00.html makes it clear that none of the finalists were from Hillsong. The same source is used to claim that "Hillsong members and former members indicated that some level of co-ordinated support of church members on Australian Idol has taken place": where in fact the "Hillsong members" "indicat[ing]" support, is actually just a pastor for an entirely unrelated church admitting that he told his "church family" to vote for his churches candidate.

Which just goes to show, the content being kept here is just an indiscriminate list of allegations, including refuted and disproven allegations like the Australian Idol and Aboriginal Finances. L32007 (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

As remarked above, the Australian Idol section seemed pretty thinly supported and not even very coherent. I have deleted it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree that section should have been removed. It seemed pretty thin to me too. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP:CRITICISM is an ESSAY, not policy, and while it may be nice to try to AVOID such sections, sometimes it is hard to put the content elsewhere. For example: Capitalism#Criticism, which also has its own complete article: Criticism of capitalism. In this article (Hillsong Church), some of these events seem hard to locate anywhere else...I agree with Walter Görlitz: these events could be moved to the "History" section, but Reliably Sourced statements shouldn't be removed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but the content is very indiscriminate as I've outlined above. Whoever is making the criticism under "Stance on homosexuality and same-sex marriage" isn't even sourced. That appears to be added off-hand so that it can be a criticism to fit in this section. Secondly, as for "Reliably Sourced statements shouldn't be removed". There is an argument to keep the quote from Carl's mistress, but the statement from Tanya Levin is irrelevant (she wrote a book about her experiences in Hillsong in the 90s (wrote the book in 07, but the experiences are from the 90s), and only serves to add to the bias that the section fosters. She markets herself as a "Hillsong Critic", if we got a quote from someone who markets themselves as a Hillsong apologist, I'm sure you'd agree that it simply isn't encyclopaedic. It really only furthers my point that the criticisms section is just a indiscriminate collection of grievances that violates the Neutral Point of View Policy very clearly. L32007 (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I was drawn to editing this article as it appeared biased in favour of the church, at least at the point I was reading. I read some mainstream media coverage about the financial scandal with RACA back in 2005, and came to this Wikipedia article to read more about it. Here's what the article stated yesterday, before I first edited it: [1]

"It was alleged that Hillsong had paid staff members with money given as a government grant for the assistance of the Riverstone Aboriginal community.[77] However, letters of apology from both the Riverstone Aboriginal Community and from the minister of justice and customs, were later published on the Hillsong website.[78]"

Firstly, this was written as if the letter of apology completely negates all allegations, whereas it does not refute that Hillsong paid their staff members with the grant money at all. In fact, the apology from RACA is rather non-specific, but more importantly, it has no non-primary sources, rather it only cites the Hillsong website. (The apology is also written on behalf of new staff members at RACA who appear to have not been involved in the original controversy; Hillsong have acknowledged previously trying to make things with RACA "amicabl[e]" by offering them six-figure sums of money. You're welcome to draw your own conclusion between those two undeniable facts, but your conclusion would be irrelevant of course as we don't allow original research). Secondly, for an incident that received considerable and ongoing mainstream media coverage and even mention in parliament, with fine details about alleged wrongdoings (I could easily make the section three times larger than it currently is, though not without violating WP:UNDUE of course), it was brushed over here with a single sentence. In fact, the primary source trying to negate all bad media coverage takes up more space than the allegations themselves. That's one hell of a case of bias. I couldn't help but wonder if this biased wording was recent, so I did a little digging and found something really shocking. Its been spun this way for many years, and previously contained even more original research. Here's where the primary source was first added back in November 2012: [2]. It was added by Adammoore1982, a single-purpose account who for nine years only made edits to articles related to this church (though thankfully hasn't logged in since 2019). Adam also removed information and a source where Hillsong acknowledges paying their staff with grant money, and instead says they did not pay their staff with the grant money (with no reference of course since this information conflicts with what was originally referenced). The uncited additions were finally removed in August 2014: [3], though original research regarding what the primary source "confirmed" remained. In July 2018, L32007 decided to add more original research, going a step further and saying the apology refutes all allegations, rather than just appears to: [4]. Thankfully the following day Walter Görlitz removed the last obvious OR [5], though issues of bias (and balance considering the available sources) remained. I don't understand how L32007 can complain this article is biased against the church, when this clear issue was able to remain in the article for nine years. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Just when I thought this couldn't get more biased in favour of the church, the bar is raised. Have a look at this recent IP edit: [6]. So for nine years the article stated the minister of justice apologised to Hillsong. It was removed recently on the grounds the source was dead (and was only a primary source to begin with anyway). The source has been added back with a live URL, alongside the original wording that the minister of justice apologised. Here's the letter: [7]. If anyone had read the letter over those nine years, they would have noticed there's no apology in it. None. There's acknowledgement that no "specific concerns" were raised with the minister regarding the original application (incidentally that's not saying they weren't raised elsewhere), but no apology whatsoever. What's absolutely amazing is that this remained for nine years, and that someone is still to this day trying to deceive readers be attributing false statements to primary sources. I've removed the statement, but I'd strongly encourage everyone who watches this page to pay particularly close attention to any IP edits to this page for bias, original research and POV pushing, as I'm certain whoever is responsible for this will try again. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I have previously read the linked letter, and that link you offered is NOT the same. L32007 (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@L32007: Your lies don't withstand much scrutiny. Hillsong uploaded the letter to their website for the first time in November 2012, the very same month it was added as a source to this Wikipedia article. Courtesy of the the Internet Archive, here's the media release section of the Hillsong Church website in January 2013 [8], and here's the letter in question as it appeared that month: [9]. Notice it's exactly same as the version currently hosted on their website today [10], exactly the same as every other archived snapshot of the website between 2012 and today, exactly the same version an IP editor tried to add to the article in July 2021 (the link I offered above), and exactly the same version that appeared on their website in July 2018 when you falsely attributed statements to it [11]. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you accusing me of lying, I am acting in good faith. You have a copy of the letter from the minister, which granted is not an apology. But the letter from the Aboriginal Community mentioned in the edit you linked to IS an apology and IS still missing -- and is NOT the letter you linked to. L32007 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You indented your reply directly under my comment about the letter from the minister. As per talk page guidelines, this indicated you are responding to that comment. If the link you were referring to was higher up the talk page thread, you should have either clarified which one you were referring to, or indented your reply under that message instead. Of course, none of this changes the fact that you did explicitly make an edit in July 2018 saying both the letter from the minister and RACA were apologies (when only the RACA one was). You're specific wording was "This was later refuted by letters of apology from both the Riverstone Aboriginal Community and from the Minister of Justice and Customs, published on the Hillsong website" (emphasis mine). I note this wasn't the last time you used a primary source to place your own original research into this article: [12]. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, L32007's behaviour has not changed, and they still appear to have double standards. Whether intentionally or not, there are still framing opinions as facts [13]. They are also adding unreferenced information to the article to defend the church (no reports of COVID at a church camp)[14], yet have previously stated they will remove material not in favour of the church if it is unreferenced [15]. L32007, if you don't understand the problem with what you're doing, please communicate what part about it is confusing here. Do you at least understand that continued edits like this undermines your complaints about the neutrality of others? Damien Linnane (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In reply to the assertion that I "previously stated [that I] will remove material not in favour of the church if it is unreferenced". This is categorically false, I never said that. I will ALWAYS try to find references for added material, and if it cannot be verified, or is disproven by sources, then I will remove it. I apologise for adding that unsourced information, it's impossible to prove a negative -- it's unsourced due to the lack of reports of covid spread -- because an editor asked for that info to be added I added it. I will be more careful in future, especially with a particular editor who is watching me intently looking for anything they can twist to paint me out as they wish to. I can only assume your good faith for so long. L32007 (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess it would have been more accurate for me to say you previously stated you "have removed" material not in favour of the church if it is unreferenced, rather than "will remove". My mistake. My point about the double standard in your behaviour, however, still stands regardless of the wording of that sentence.

I can't say I've ever noticed you assuming good faith about me, case in point your new accusation that I'm twisting things against you (I guess you must also think the only two other editors at the ANI who have looked into your behavior are twisting things against you too), but I'll ignore that for now to address the current edits in question. For future reference, you should never add information to Wikipedia that something didn't happen just because you haven't found a source for it. Everything on Wikipedia should be sourced; if you can't find a source, just don't mention it. As you've mentioned you believe no source for that information exists, I'm going to remove it for now, though feel free to reinstate it if you do indeed find secondary coverage on the matter. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is horrible. Whoever wrote this article must hate Hillsong. I'm pretty familiar with them; I'll take a look SoCalGoetz (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE

I want to again highlight the fact the controversy section is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Criticism from a former member" is not a controversy, It's a woman person who appears to be trying to sell a book and promote her new 2021 podcast. (Relevancy?) L32007 (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC) edited to remove inadvertant gendered language 08:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Starting a new section for an existing discussion after another editor points out irrefutable evidence that you're lying and have manipulated sources is not helping your case.

"It's a woman" - your choice of language when attempting to attack her credibility is noted and interesting. The woman you have a problem with, Tanya Levin, not only has a name, but she clearly satisfies notability guidelines. As such, comments from her are most certainly relevant, as long as they have reliable sourcing and due weight. The section could be reworded or the information merged elsewhere, sure, but the only thing irrelevant here is your personal, unsourced opinion that she is only criticising Hillsong to sell her book and promote her podcast. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

At this point i'd request you cease personally attacking me and suggesting that I am not acting in good faith. The mention of her podcast is not notable, nor is it sourced in the wikipedia article and that's why I removed it. And yes, I stand by my comments that a single person complaining about a church she used to attend in the 90's is not a "Controversy", and does not belong in that section. L32007 (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you removing the unsourced information about the podcast. I don't know why you're mentioning that.

I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out your editing history, and the nature of your criticism, which speaks for itself. There's a difference.

Let's wait for more opinions on whether a person who satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines is allowed to have opinions on the church mentioned in the article if they're published in reliable sources. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, Damien Linnane, you are attacking the editor by calling them a liar. WP:NPA is clear that you should focus on the content rather than the contributor.

Feel free to show the facts, which you are quite good at, but do not comment on editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My edit did focus on the content. Here's my comment: [16]. Notice there's 137 words focusing on the content with evidence, and only six words where I use this evidence to conclude L32007 is lying. I disagree that calling someone a liar is a personal attack if there's hard evidence, but even if it was an attack, you can't deny that my comment did focus on the content. You're the one focusing on the wrong thing. If you want to move forward, I suggest you also focus on the content of my post, rather than ignoring it entirely and only responding to what you interpret to be a personal attack. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

She "satisfies notability guidelines" because she was arrested for tresspass at Hillsong and it made the news. All the notable live sources on the page about her relate to that, except ONE other source. Her attempts at self publicity are obvious, and the ad that I removed promoting her podcast clearly was promotional and not encyclopedic. L32007 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If you believe she doesn't actually meet notable guidelines and that her article should not exist the place to discuss this is at her article. Your moral opinion on how she obtained notability, and your unsourced opinions on what you see as 'obvious', are irrelevant to whether or not her comments can appear in this article. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Article "Exposing Hillsong: The Pedophile Church That Justin Bieber Made Famous"

[17] Doug Weller talk 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WTF? SoCalGoetz (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, that's a false accusation, second of all, Justin Bieber was already famous :/ SoCalGoetz (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Safe sanctuaries in the UMC requires 2 adults when there are children, all churches should look into that SoCalGoetz (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh dang I guess that is true :/ SoCalGoetz (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

People who hate an organization

Probably don't contribute much to its Wikipedia page SoCalGoetz (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

As Miley Cyrus says, "haters gonna hate" SoCalGoetz (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SoyGabrielacantu (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pasillas21.

— Assignment last updated by Pasillas21 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)