Talk:Paula White

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] criticism about lack of formal training

I was asked to look at this article and two others by User:Bwalker5435, as an uninvolved third party. I see that User:Cats77 inserted a note about criticism of White for lack of formal training; this note was deleted by User:Bwalker5435 because unsourced; it was placed back into the article by Cats77 with a source (Larry King transcript); removed again by Bwalker5435; and put back in again by Cats77 with the source.

My observations are:

  1. The source cited (the Larry King transcript) is valid for the assertion that she has no formal training. It does not directly state that she has been criticized for that lack of formal training, although that's the implication of his persistent questioning regarding her training and ordination. However, since that claim has proven itself contentious, let's get a second source for that. I'll look too, because I believe I have seen this criticism in the media.
  2. What to do with the comment in the meantime? The material is not libelous or particularly troubling from a BLP concern; it states that White has been critiqued because of lack of formal training. That's a relatively minor criticism and while all info about a living person falls under WP:BLP, it's not something that would hurt the person, their privacy, or present any reasonable legal claims against Wikipedia. Moreover the information is not wholly unsourced -- the implication behind King's question is, in fact, somewhat critical. However, BLP says to just remove it if it's contentious. So we may as well take it out the material about "criticized because of" until an additional source can be found that expressly critiques the lack of formal training. The material about her credentials is sourced & should be left in. ... However, an edit war is not justified; Bwalker5435 could easily rewrite the sentence to remove the contentious part (about criticism) and leave in the sourced, uncontentious material (about lack of formal training), and hopefully Cats77 will adduce an additional source referencing the critique.

--Lquilter (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Lquilter.Mcelite (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite
I agree, as well. However, I would suggest including the "no formal training" in the body of the article and remove it from criticism, as the King interview established the fact of no training, but not the suggestion of criticism.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Tx Lyonscc -- I realized that my comment was unclear; that was what I had meant as well. I've amended my comment above. --Lquilter (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)