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 article's subject. |
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 is currently on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
Comedy Unassessed Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Taxation Unassessed ( inactive) | |||||||
|
Religion Unassessed Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Television Unassessed Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
United States: Television Unassessed Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
}}
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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)
Will 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)
Why is this category included when the prose mentions nothing about Texas? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
By what definition is this not a television series?— Wavelength ( talk) 21:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether it's correct to list Oliver as CEO in the infobox. Can a church have a CEO? In a legal sense. In any case, it would probably be better to list a different source other than the show itself to back up that claim. (Not a primary source.) - Uncle Alf ( talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
References
Are we overemphasising a joke to report that the church was literally shut down "due to donations to the church of four vials of what appeared to be semen"? It's hard to tell if the Rolling Stone source used is just repeating the joke, but from the original monologue it seems more like this was just a good joke to end the project on - the point had been made, and there was no reason to keep it going as a sketch every week. By stating or implying that the church was shut down for a single, specific reason, we're suggesting that Oliver would have otherwise liked to continue the church but was unable to, which I'm not sure is really the case. -- McGeddon ( talk) 19:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I just saw this clip from Real Time with Bill Maher. Apparently, John Oliver’s stunt has had a predecessor of sorts. Worth a mention? Siúnrá ( talk) 10:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Does this church really need to have its own article? I feel it should just be a few lines on the page about John Oliver or LastWeekTonight -- Mèþru ( talk) 14:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
Review done :) Seven day hold the nominator to address the following concerns. :3 F4U ( they /it) 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
satirizing what ministries are allowed to do by law, essentially having no obligation to provide any care.Rephrase
to get money in the form of donationsreplace with
for donations.
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 state
In the segment, Oliver criticized televangelists like Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton...
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 mailThis isn't mentioned in the article and should not be stated in wikivoice.
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, stating
To 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.
"taking advantage of the open-ended IRS definition of the word 'church' and procuring a litany of tax breaks"You can't just slap
according to a report in The Washington Postand 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.
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 as
compared 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.
FreedomFromHealthCare.orgis still against external links policy.
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?
This is an awesome article, though it might've been more fitting to run it on April Fools. GobsPint ( talk) 09:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
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 article's subject. |
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 is currently on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
Comedy Unassessed Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Taxation Unassessed ( inactive) | |||||||
|
Religion Unassessed Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Television Unassessed Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
United States: Television Unassessed Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
}}
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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)
Will 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)
Why is this category included when the prose mentions nothing about Texas? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
By what definition is this not a television series?— Wavelength ( talk) 21:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether it's correct to list Oliver as CEO in the infobox. Can a church have a CEO? In a legal sense. In any case, it would probably be better to list a different source other than the show itself to back up that claim. (Not a primary source.) - Uncle Alf ( talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
References
Are we overemphasising a joke to report that the church was literally shut down "due to donations to the church of four vials of what appeared to be semen"? It's hard to tell if the Rolling Stone source used is just repeating the joke, but from the original monologue it seems more like this was just a good joke to end the project on - the point had been made, and there was no reason to keep it going as a sketch every week. By stating or implying that the church was shut down for a single, specific reason, we're suggesting that Oliver would have otherwise liked to continue the church but was unable to, which I'm not sure is really the case. -- McGeddon ( talk) 19:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I just saw this clip from Real Time with Bill Maher. Apparently, John Oliver’s stunt has had a predecessor of sorts. Worth a mention? Siúnrá ( talk) 10:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Does this church really need to have its own article? I feel it should just be a few lines on the page about John Oliver or LastWeekTonight -- Mèþru ( talk) 14:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
Review done :) Seven day hold the nominator to address the following concerns. :3 F4U ( they /it) 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
satirizing what ministries are allowed to do by law, essentially having no obligation to provide any care.Rephrase
to get money in the form of donationsreplace with
for donations.
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 state
In the segment, Oliver criticized televangelists like Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton...
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 mailThis isn't mentioned in the article and should not be stated in wikivoice.
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, stating
To 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.
"taking advantage of the open-ended IRS definition of the word 'church' and procuring a litany of tax breaks"You can't just slap
according to a report in The Washington Postand 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.
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 as
compared 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.
FreedomFromHealthCare.orgis still against external links policy.
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?
This is an awesome article, though it might've been more fitting to run it on April Fools. GobsPint ( talk) 09:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)