Talk:Paula White/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

Neutrality?

Really how on Earth does it seem like a promotion of her ministry? This seems so stupid.Mcelite (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It seemed that way because of the addition of all the fluff about her below which I've removed from the article. I've also removed the tag. -- œ^™ 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a bit much for all of that it was more of a list than actual sentences and I didn't see that when you first questioned the article I've been rushing for the past 2 weeks i need a vaction. lol Pretty sad I didn't notice the change when I created this article.Mcelite (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes well it also seems like we've got a fan of Mrs. White that wants to whitewash the article. I'm not disagreeing that all the content removed by user Rev2296 (talk · contribs) shouldn't be in the article, I just think there should be discussion first before a mass-blanking of referenced content that could possibly unbalance the neutrality of the article. -- œ^™ 17:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Awards & Recognition (to be trimmed and added into article)

2006-Church Report –listed as one of the Top 50 “Most Influential Christians in America

Has received keys to the following cities: • Tampa, FL • Tupelo, MS • Saginaw, MI • Hattisburg, MS • Pineville, LA • Columbia, SC • Lake City, SC

Recipient of the: • 2009 humanitarian award by the Trumpet Award Foundation • 2009-“We Shall Overcome Award” –presented by the Cochran Law Firm-Jock M. Smith

• 2007 Behind the Bench “Mind, Body Spirit Award” from the NBA Wives Organization- for outstanding achievement in helping women and children-New York City

• 2007-Achievement Award-presented by Bishop Noel Jones, City of Refuge in Los Angeles, CA- provided Back to School Supplies for the needy

• 2006- Lifetime Achievement Award-awarded by CEO Roundtable discussion –Economic Empowerment, Inc-Atlanta, GA-for service, leadership and dedication

• 2006 “Trailblazer Award” by Jesse Jackson and Rainbow coalition

2007-special recognition by congressman-Sanford D. Bishop, Jr for outstanding achievement in service and public distinction

Special Event/Organization Participation

Participated (by special invitation) on the TNT Panel for the series “Hawthorne”

-Partnered with Harlem’s “Northside Center” –food distribution and sponsored their efforts to educate and provide social services and support to underprivileged children and their families

-Featured Speaker for Mega Fest –hosted by Bishop TD Jakes in Atlanta, GA-2004 & 2005, Johannesberg, South Africa in 2008

-Featured speaker and presenter at the annual Trumpet Awards 2007 & 2008

-Performed invocation for the 40th anniversary of Dr. MLK Jr.’s assassination in Memphis, TN-April 2008

-Presenter at Maya Angelou’s 80th birthday tribute in Atlanta, GA-May 4, 2008

-Participated on the board for “Safe Horizons”-a non-profit group that advocates for women and children who have fallen victim to domestic violence

Humanitarian Outreaches

-Each year provides food for the needy with “Table in the Wilderness”-locations have been Tampa, San Antonio and Harlem, New York

-Each year-sponsors “Back To School Bash”-Tampa, San Antonio, New York City, The Appalachains-North Carolina and Los Angeles

-1992, in the wake of the infamous Los Angeles riots, co-founded Operation S.T.I.T.C.H.E.S (Saving The Inner Cities Through Christ’s Hope Eternal Salvation) to minister to America’s troubled urban areas.

-Founder of Operation Explosion, a vital outreach which ministers to the needs of those living in America’s inner city areas

TV & Radio Program Features

• ABC’s Good Morning America • ABC’s Primetime with Diane Sawyer • ABC’s 20/20 • BBC • BET’s “Meet the Faith” • CBN’s 700 Club • CBS’ Talk of the Town • CNN’s Special Report with Roland Martin • “What would Jesus Really Do?” • CoCo Brother Radio Show-Nationally Syndicated • Extra • FOX and Friends • FOX Network’s Daytime with Linda Vester • Inside Edition • Larry King Live • Life Today with James Robison • MSNBC Live • Scarborough Country • TBN’s “Praise” • Tyra Banks Show

Contributing Author for magazines and journals

• Celeb Staff Magazine • Celeb Life Magazine • Charisma • Ebony • Essence • Gentlemen’s Quarterly (GQ) • Gospel Today • SpiritLed Women • Streaming Faith On-Line Devotionals

Published Written Works

• Move On, Move Up • You’re All That • 10 Commandments of Health and Wellness • Simple Suggestions For A Sensational Life! • Deal With It • He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not • Birthing Your Dream • Morning by Morning • Living the Abundant Life • Life by Design

Paule White Photo

I do not understand what is the problem with the Paula White photo with Tyra Banks being used. It does nothing negative to the article nor is it showing favortism to Paule White. What is the problem?Mcelite (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture is non free in a BLP. Adds nothing, no worthwhile fair use excuse. Time would be better spent look for a commons licensed picture. Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think its nice to just have at least one photo that is legit to use until something else can be found.Mcelite (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Inquiry

Boldly removed inquiry section as violating WP:UNDUE. The inquiry found no wrongdoing by White or her organization, and no charges were ever filed. The only potentially controversial part of the inquiry was that she refused to turn over all of the requested material; however, the requests were also protested as being excessive. It is a complete non-story and does not belong on the page. Blacklist21 (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This cannot be considered WP:UNDUE as it was a noteable news event that occurred specific to Paula White, it does not concern an opinion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southyclaus (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I understand WP:UNDUE. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia. WP:UNDUE concerns more than just opinions in the press (which, by the way, is allowed). WP:UNDUE means the event in question is not notable enough to warrant mention on the page. She is a very successful, highly visible and influencial preacher with a compelling history. Regarding the inquiry, no wrongdoing was found and no charges were ever filed. The inquiry proved to be nothing. This fits the very definition of WP:UNDUE.Blacklist21 (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't my first time around the circle. The fact that the event occurred is notable in that she was investigated by the United States Congress. This was not a local police department or newspaper. Please feel free to provide other similar examples where you believe WP:UNDUE has been used in this case.Southyclaus (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:Other Stuff Exists - I am sure there are plenty of examples where frivolous investigations with no charges whatsoever are left off of a prominent person's page. This lawsuit does not have merit and should not be included on this page. It violates WP:UNDUE because she the lawsuit is not nearly as notable as the rest of her life; giving it space on this page only serves to legitimize something that has already proven to be unfounded and spurious. It's been three years with no charges, follow-ups or even insinuation of wrongdoing. It does not belong.Blacklist21 (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's being discussed, and there is as yet no consensus for this edit that removed the extant tag. Blacklist21 removed it unilaterally and without clear support on this page. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It does seem as though Blacklist21 is censoring information they believe to be counter to the narrative they'd like presented for this figure. In the interest of "being bold," this seems pretty blatantly politically-motivated, and the arguments presented make it difficult to assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.176.30.240 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Good argument Anon; thanks for signing your post. And knock off the weasel words about politics and assuming good faith. All I said is that this inquiry produced no charges and found no wrongdoing. She is notable for so many other things that this inquiry is no longer even discussed when her bio is presented in articles. I'm sorry that Anon has trouble assuming good faith, but for everyone else, please let's stick to the facts.Blacklist21 (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Lack of relevant detail

I stumbled onto this page and was amazed at some of what's written here. It starts with this: "She had a baby out of wedlock but soon married the child’s father. At age eighteen, while living in Maryland with her newborn baby, she was introduced to the gospel and became a Christian. Her marriage ended soon after.[3] She met her future husband, Randy White, when he visited a church where she was working as a janitor." I knew this woman and her first husband personally for many years. We all attended Damascus Church of God, in Damascus, Maryland, together. This article fails to mention many things I think might be relevant. For starters, Paula was married to Dean Knight, her first husband, who was the Church's Youth Minister for a year or two. Paula mostly worked with Dean in this capacity, he with the boys and she with the girls, although it's true that she came in to clean the church every now and then in exchange for a few bucks. Her marriage did not end "soon after" their baby, Bradley, was born. It was several years. The reason her marriage ended was because the Pastor, Frank White, had a son named Randy. Randy would come and preach every now and then at the church, but mostly he travelled around as a guest speaker at other churches, with his wife at the time. Paula's marriage ended because she and Randy started an affair with one another that basically split our church into two factions, and in some measure helped destroy it. The congregation dwindled steadily after the whole debacle and finally the Church was sold to someone else entirely. That's how she met her "future husband". The wife of the Youth Minister had an affair with the Pastor's son, and they wrecked both their marriages. Then they left for Florida with her son from the first marriage. Is none of that relevant? I've heard she repeats this story of how she met Randy quite alot, without ever mentioning that she was married when they began their relationship, or mentioning the actual roles all of the parties played in our church. Needless to say it undermined many people's faith in both Randy and Paula, especially when they seemed so unrepentant. Paula, do you read your own wiki page? I hope so, and I hope you're ashamed of yourself and the way you've misrepresented both yourself and Randy over the years, and for seeking wealth at the expense of the gullible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.44.81 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw this information in the Benny Hinn page but saw no mention of the affair in this page:

In July 2010, both Hinn and fellow televangelist Paula White denied allegations in the National Enquirer that the two were engaged in an affair.[42] Hinn was sued in February 2011 by the Christian publishing house Strang Communications, which claimed that a relationship with White did occur and that Hinn had violated the morality clause of his contract with the company.[43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.119.50.56 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Anybody can edit this article. All you need are WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

White? Which White?

The whole article needs revision on the use of the name White, since there are two different whites. I suggest that every time White is used for Paula White, White be changed to Paula White or simply Paula. It is hard to know when the article speaks of Paula & when of Randy. Here is an example where the second White is unclear:

"However, later that year, both senior pastor positions were restored to pastor Randy White. White is no longer associated with Without Walls International Church."

BTW, tense use can be inaccurate because of time progression: "White is no longer". Better use past tense: "As of December 1, 2017, Randy is no longer" -- is that what the editor meant? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC))

No, not first name by itself. Use both names when needed. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Regular ministry

The section title "Retirement from regular ministry" makes no sense to me. Is she now an irregular minister? What is "regular ministry"? Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Paula Michelle White-Cain

Is Paula Michelle White-Cain really her name? Do we have a source for that? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

She identifies herself as Paula White-Cain on her website [1] Activist (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Then we can add that as an AKA. But as a title we follow WP:COMMONNAME and that should be first in the lead. Note that Paula White-Cain is already a redirect so people searching on that name will find her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Prosperity theology

Hello GB fan. Thank you for your message.

It is absolutely necessary that Wikipedia has a very strict policy about living people. Thanks.

But I only added proven facts about a person of public interest.

It is fact, that prosperity theology is a controversial religious belief which claims that material prosperity is a sign of God's grace. This is sourced. See Wikipedia "prosperity theology". And it is not negative about Paula White to say that prosperity theology is "controversial". A controversy is a prolonged public dispute or debate, with people having different opinions ans not negative.

And I think that this should be mentioned in the first sentences and not far down, because it is a major content. For example: You would not write about Charlie Parker that he was a musician and mention far down, that he was a jazz musician, saxophonist and composer. You would write in the first sentence that he was American jazz saxophonist and composer.

Best Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypodamos (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Above comment copied from User talk:GB fan. ~ GB fan 12:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hypodamos, why should we add something to this article that isn't stated or sourced in the article about Prosperity theology. That article does not say anywhere is in that it is a controversial belief. It does say it is criticized but most things are criticized, that does not make them controversial. If someone is reading this article and they don't know what Prosperity theology is, they should go to that article to learn about it. We shouldn't discuss that here, this article is about Paula White not about Prosperity theology. ~ GB fan 12:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's controversial, hence the long criticism section at Prosperity theology#Criticism ~ Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't controversial. I stated that the article does not call it controversial. How we treat Prosperity theology is a matter for the article on that. We do not editorialize the concept on another article. In this article we need to talk about Paula White, not Prosperity Theology. Even if it did belong in the article, it wouldn't belong in the lead. That is just a summary of the article as a whole. ~ GB fan 14:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I still think, controversial is the right word and it is necessary to mention this. It is a main subject, that Paula White is known as a supporter of Prosperity theology. And it is important to know, that Prosperity theology controversial and what means. We should take the main characters and facts into the lead. Or do you think we should remove Charlie Parkers description as a jazz musician in the lead? Is it better to describe him only as a musician and mention jazz later? Hypodamos

Are you saying that calling prosperity theology controversial is the same as saying he is a musician that plays jazz? Those two are no where near to the same thing. It would be closer if we added an evaluation of jazz music after saying he is a jazz musician. What you are advocating for has nothing to do with Paula White, it is a description of prosperity theology. Saying he is a jazz musician, is describing him, not the jazz music he plays. ~ GB fan 19:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You wrote "What you are advocating for has nothing to do with Paula White, it is a description of prosperity theology." Paula White is prominent proponent of prosperity theology. So it has a lot to do with her that she takes the controversial position that material prosperity is a proof of God's grace. Hypodamos, 08:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. I did say that and I stand by it. It is controversial for those that think it is controversial and it isn't controversial for those that don't believe it to be. The fact that Prosperity theology is controversial is about the theology, not Paula White. I looked at the 31 theologians that are listed at Category:Prosperity theologians. About half of the articles mention prosperity theology in the lead. None of the articles mention that prosperity theology is controversial. Why should this article be the only one to state it is controversial? Do we add comments about the controversial status of all ideas that people are prominent proponents of? Do we add that the Pope is the proponent of the controversial idea of Roman Catholicism? Do we add to any prominent proponent of any religious belief that the belief is controversial? We could change from religion to politics and start adding to articles about prominent proponents of any political ideology that the political ideology is controversial. All of these ideas are controversial to a large portion of the population. Most of the time the place to talk about the controversial nature of an idea is in the article about the idea. There are times when it would be appropriate to discuss the controversial nature in a proponent's article. It would be appropriate to discuss that prosperity theology is controversial in the theologian's article that started it, that is not Paula White. It does not belong in this article. ~ GB fan 11:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with GB fan, HOWEVER, *IF* we have any sources saying "Paula White is a proponent of the controversial Prosperity Theory" then it would be acceptable to say that in THIS article. I haven't yet seen any such sources, so until then, it should be discussed as GB fan says, otherwise it could be seen as Original Research....maybe there are varying levels of support for PT, and some preacher's versions are more or less controversial. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Political Career

I have added a section on Political Career to differentiate between Whites role as a pastoral advisor and her role in an actual White House appointed position. As controversial as Paula White may be, it is significant for a twice divorced female pastor to not only be the voice of the Evangelical Christian voters(a group that historically rejects women pastors and frowns upon divorce) but to find herself in an official White House position. It seemed the significance of this achievement was lacking. I have referenced the earliest press releases concerning her appointment, however to date the official White House bulletin or press release is not available on the White House archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averagejohn38 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2023 and 29 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evangelizerec (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Evangelizerec (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)