Talk:Chris Oyakhilome

message: This article must maintain a neutral point of view, abstaining from use of his nickname and from assertions of "mighty miracles" and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It currently reads a lot like a promotional/PR piece, with a dose of Controversy section. Some content seems directly cribbed from his organization's web site. Elehack (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Y'all beat me to the post.... PurpleChez (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this help, ? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I added some info on his recent activities to the top section of the page. I also added some info on an investigation into one of the church-associated charities in the Philanthropy section. To achieve balance I think this article needs to reflect that this is a successful pastor whose activities have also caught the attention of disinformation and charity watchdogs on multiple occasions. This information needs to be presented together. Pvanheus (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Is it feasible to restructure this article to merge material from the "Controversy" section into other sections? The Wikipedia:Criticism guidance notes that "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section". Currently the "Controversy" section has 2 main controversies: the association of Oyakhilome's preaching with "prosperity gospel" theology which can perhaps be moved into the "Ministry and theology" section and a range of controversies about health disinformation. As Pastor Oyakhilome is becoming famous (or infamous) in some circles for his claims about vaccines and faith healing, perhaps a dedicated section on "Anti-vaccine advocacy and conspiracy theories on public health" is needed? Would this be enough to move the article to neutral point of view? Pvanheus (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it can be merged, but if you are saying we should have a dedicated anti-vaccine and conspiracy theory section, that is surely still a criticism section, renamed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is, but for example I put the bit about the investigation into malpractice at a charity in the "Philanthropy" section. And like I suggested, the prosperity gospel stuff can be moved into the bit about "Ministry and theology". This kind of weaving seeks to balance each section. I noticed that for e.g. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. his antivax activism is mentioned on two places: in the intro and in a dedicated section, and though a similar pattern could be followed. Pvanheus (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas Kenneth Copeland still has a controversy section. I don't think we can take any precedents. Prosperity theology is also quite controversial. However, in general I think I support this. Do you want to go ahead and re-arrange?  I'll happily tidy up as appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: There were several claims on the page about billions of people attending events, but with no evidence to confirm those figures, except one promotional page, that did not name the source or independent verification of numbers of people attending. I have deleted the unfounded numbers presented here. I also am assuming a [billion] refers to 1,000,000,000 as defined on the short scale, it is beyond possible that 3.5 billion would have attended this person's event and it not become newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latequartet (talk • contribs) 13:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about billions attending person's events 

message: I think "crusade" has an unconvential meaning here. The link suggests that he leads armies to other countries to slaughter people who do not share his beliefs, and the cited source talks about "healing crusades", whatever that may be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "crusade" has historically been used (not entirely uncontroversially) to refer to mass evangelistic events. For instance, the evangelistic rallies of Billy Graham were often called Billy Graham Crusades. But yes, we should use a different word. I'll make an edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusades?