Talk:Eddie Long

Senate probe and civil lawsuits

Seeing how Bishop Long is under 3 civil lawsuits perhaps it would be of interest to add to his article that he is under a senate probe also?

Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, has asked Bishop Eddie Long and five other media-based ministries for information regarding expenses, executive compensation, and amenities given to executives. http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=12011

Bobmutch 6:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I read the letter sent by Senator Grassley and it seems like his office has done quite a bit of research and, or, acquired some specific inside information. A quick news search through Google shows a large number of articles relating to Long and Grassley. It appears from a scan of some articles from 2008 that Long was one of three ministers refusing to cooperate. I think someone with more knowledge of the subject matter and more familiar with all these Christian news organizations needs to sort through them and build a coherent section. Perhaps there are some religious leader type categories the article can be assigned to so qualified editors can help. Noticed later that it is assigned to many categories but is still a very incomplete article. Veriss (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Request photo

98.88.130.107 (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you use the photo of him in his underwear, that he sent one of the young men? Codenamemary (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the one's in which he's taking his own picture in the mirror with a cell phone cam 1. they're copyrighted, which means we can't use them and 2. I'm pretty sure it's workout gear, not underwear. I imagine someone out there has met him in person, and taken a photograph. If the release it under the appropriate license, we should be able to use it. Until then, no pics :( Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Career section riddled with controversies

On a related note, Mr. Long's career section is riddled with controversial type statements. Perhaps they should be moved into a separate section like in other biographies. Veriss (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Veriss (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage of the style of "Bishop"

The usages of his style "Bishop" in his info box. There is no indication that this rank, position, title or style was granted to Mr. Long by some organization with any standing. Is it correct to use this "style" in Long's info box without a source indicating it's more then a self-awarded title? Should it be removed if there is no discussion of how he got it? Veriss (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The title is assigned by the church he is employed by. The church does have numerous other pastors and ministers according to the web site and does have elders so I would guess it was assigned by the elders. He is also referred to as the senior pastor, but since various media outlets refer to him as Bishop also it is not wrong to use that title. Kilowattradio (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

While I find the use of the title Bishop used by one outside of Apostolic Succession distasteful in the same way one using Doctor when holding a PhD from a bible diploma mill of no accreditation or report is, it is still within precedent of this style of church as seen in this article on Bishops. Still, it does feel like WP:NFT. --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Seemed a bit affected to me but I'll leave it alone since all the major media are using the title even though I suspect they use now just to increase the salacious-at-a-glance value of their headlines and sell more papers. I like that the apparently self-awarded title isn't used in conjunction with Long's name in the text of the article and think we should continue that precedent as the article develops. I think the article does deserve a sourced mention of how Long acquired the title somewhere in the career section. Veriss (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Snipes98, 27 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Eddie long is Not a member of Kappa Alpha Psi

Snipes98 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. According to this source, he is. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Uncle Dick (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article

I removed the collapsed section below (click the "show" link) about a graduation boycott in 2006 from the article. Given the passage of time, I just don't see the lasting importance of a speaker cancelling an appearance, or students "discussing a boycott" to a proper biography of this man. Particularly given the recent expansion of (properly sourced) negative information, this indicent violates WP:UNDUE. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Click "show" to the right to see paragraph

Graduation boycott

In 2006, Long's appearance at Atlanta's Interdenominational Theological Center's graduation stirred up controversy, and led to some students discussing a boycott. Long's invitation prompted Black liberation theologian James Cone—who was scheduled to receive an honorary degree—to boycott the ceremony. Thirty-three graduating seniors sent a letter to the seminary's president "questioning Long's theological and ethical integrity to be their commencement speaker." Many students did not agree with Long's beliefs that God can "deliver" homosexuals and his teachings on prosperity.

When I first read that section it didn't really pass the "so what" test and seemed like a bit of "piling on". Might as well make room for probably plenty more negative stuff to appear before this lawsuit or the congressional inquiry into Long's financial affairs are done. Veriss (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

New Sources

I found three new sources that discuss several key points that the article doesn't cover very well yet. They provide important information concerning:

• source of the title of "Bishop"
• detailed timeline of Long's career and the development of the church
• affiliation and breaking of affiliation with a larger denomination in the '90s
• how independent baptist churches are
• Long's church deacons granting full and complete autonomy to their senior pastor
• discussion of funding the growth of the ministry, acquisition of properties, etc.
• personal life
• etc.

http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2010/09/bishop-eddie-long-the-baptist.html

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/3429/eddie_long%3A_the_real_scandal_is_even_bigger

http://198.106.21.96/download/ECCLESIA%20ebook%20no%20ads.pdf

They may not all meet the criteria for notability and reliability but could help editors fill in some gaps and develop leads to appropriately notable and reliable sources. The article does merit more weight in the career and ministry sections compared to all the large and growing controversy sections. I'm not sure I'm qualified to wade through all this info but I present the links in hopes more qualified folks can use it.

I left out the google search about his alleged toupee...humorous but not encyclopedic I don't think.  :) Veriss (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can go you one better. The book "Watch this!: the ethics and aesthetics of black televangelism" By Jonathan L. Walton, published by NYU Press and unquestionably a reliable source has lengthy coverage on everything you mention above and more. It will also help to develop a section the man's theology, which would seem to be highly relevant here. Best of all, most of it shows up in Google Books. I'm swamped IRL and don't have the time ATM, I hope someone takes up the challenge. I am disheartened at the WP:BLP violations occurring, this article doesn't remotely meet WP:NPOV at present. Folks, this is an encyclopedia article, not a tabloid. Newspapers only have to worry about whether something libel. Our BLP and NPOV policies are much stronger. That mini rant wasn't addressed at you Veriss, I just needed to vent a bit. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is Roland Martin?

I can answer that question but the article fails to answer it so if you want to include it you need to explain WTH Martin is. We need to justify why he deserves a quote. Fix it by explaining who he is in the text of the article or it needs to go IMO. Veriss (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

can you provide some constructive assistance and update the article, that way you'll be satisfied–this is a wiki (collaborative effort)?98.88.162.90 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I added that Roland Martin is a commentator for TV One.--Ccson (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Ccson, the change must've been lost in the history because it's not there now. I would change it myself but I don't have the personal conviction that his comments rate inclusion. I don't have the background to make that call about Martin's expertise on the subject, though I am sure he is important, so can only point out that inclusion requires telling the reader why his comments rate inclusion. Veriss (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph has evolved since I raised my initial concern that arose from quotes of Martin advocating that Long step down. This is no longer the case so is no longer an issue. Thanks Ccson. Veriss (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

reverted for the wrong reason

here i reverted because i thought there was unsourced material added. but a formatted reference with a citation template was reduced to a url at the end with lots of the article included. i think the revert is still appropriate, although because the addition was WP:UNDUE and it appeared to not be WP:NPOV. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)