Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Christianity Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I think this page seriously need a re-write as it contains non-neutral tones and seemingly self-promoting style of writing. Whoever wrote this article should rewrite it in a more encyclopedia-style - just the facts, without the fluff. I am inclined to remove some of those fluff.Atticuslai 09:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what you think about this. - 218.186.9.5 07:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Now all we need is more content. Atticuslai 05:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect to Joseph Prince, but I have concerns about whether or not he is notable enough for a Wikipedia bio, per WP:BIO. This article needs to have information from reliable sources confirming that he is notable outside of his immediate community. I'm willing to give the article a bit more time to breathe, but if people just keep deleting the tags, then we should probably nominate it for deletion and let the community decide. --Elonka 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the call for deletion of this article. Atticuslai 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what sources do you want. The guy's a pastor and not a superstar. - 222.164.89.16 10:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and if he's just a pastor, he shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. See WP:BIO. In order to be notable enough to be "encyclopedic" there need to be reliable third-party sources which prove that the individual is "famous." Newspaper articles, magazine articles, books about him, that kind of thing. If those can't be provided, the Wikipedia article should probably be deleted, or the information should be merged into some other article. --Elonka 10:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can sources from things like religious conferences be sufficient? - 222.164.89.16 10:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the kind of source, and what kind of information it's providing... If he was a primary Guest of Honor at a major conference, that would help to establish notability, yes. If the source is just saying that he was an attendee or speaker though, then it wouldn't be as helpful. Show us what you've got? --Elonka 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(followup) After further researching it, I stand by my opinion that Joseph Prince is not notable enough for a separate Wikipedia bio at this time. However, I do think it's worth having a paragraph about him at the New Creation Church article. I recommend merging the information from the Joseph Prince article there for now, and then the name "Joseph Prince" can be setup as a redirect to the Church article. If he becomes more individually notable in the future, meaning known outside of Singapore, it'll be easy enough to re-establish a separate article. --Elonka 21:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best to merge the article with the Church's. Joseph Prince currently lacks the notability. Atticuslai 23:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll see what I an do to expand his section there with information from here. 218.186.9.4 11:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Joseph Prince section in the New Creation Church (Singapore) article has been expanded. If anyone thinks that it is acceptable, they can add "#redirect New Creation Church (Singapore)#Senior pastor Joseph Prince" to this article.218.186.9.4 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in learning more about this man. He definitely deserves a wikipedia page. He is a published author, pastors a church with more than 17,000 people. (that is far more than louis farakkan). He is a published author. And, he runs programs on television internationally. I saw him on tv, and I came here to learn more about him. I am disappointed by this site. Not notable enough? When you do a Yahoo search for Joseph, the first name that is suggested for a last name is Prince. I think there is some anti-religious bias at work. Or, people do not like his point of view and discriminate accordingly. You have sites for other notable preachers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.198.146 (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 87.231.185.157 (talk) 09:36, 12 December

material was pasted in from http://admpreview.straitstimes.com:90/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2f0e3114209cc110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=016fe84edfbf8110VgnVCM100000350a0a0aRCRD

It needs to be rewritten.87.231.185.157 (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to editing. Found ref 3 (The Straits Times article) to be invalid/not live; however, I found a live link to a pdf of a Singapore Sunday Times article (http://www.tmc.org.my/documents/pjp.pdf) that covers the same topic. I do not know how to edit the reference, though.

I will figure out what to do and will later update the article as needed.

traveller1209 21:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towers1209 (talk • contribs)

Few points:

1) Only reliable source provided so far has been the Straits Times, which does not mention his previous name. Blogs and Forums do not carry weight here on Wikipedia. Those wishing to challenge this are welcome to read up on what the Wikipedia community considers as reliable sources first.

2) According to the quoted source, the name change was associated more to his previous occupation, rather than related to his church appointment. I have edited the text to reflect this accordingly. Below is the context and text which mentioned the name change.

Source: Joseph Prince, by the way, was a name he adopted when he was working as an IT consultant before he became a full-time pastor

Previous Edit: Prince chose to change his birth name to Joseph Prince prior to his appointment as a full-time pastor in the New Creation Church.

My Edit: Prince chose to change his birth name to Joseph Prince while in his previous occupation as an IT consultant.

My reasoning is being this whole article makes it very clear that the subject is currently a full-time pastor at the church, it is redundant to repeatedly reference to this fact. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how pertinent it is to include that he changed his name as an IT consultant. Was it a result of being an IT consultant? If not, then why not include that he changed his name when he was this age, this tall, that year, etc. Seems superfluous. Why not just his current name is not his birth name? Clamtow (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because according to the source, the timing of the name change is associated with his previous occupation. Since the source did not speculate as to the reason for the change, the only thing we can mention is the timing, not the reason. To add or imply anything else is to introduce original research, speculation or opinion. As I see that you are apparently a new editor, I have provided some introductory material on your user page. Do go through them, as these include basic DOs and Donts in wikipedia which you should familiarise yourself with. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Clamtow: As Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, please familiarise yourself with our editing guideline on biographies of living persons. Thank you and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association establishes pertinancy? My only suggestion is to mention that he changed his name so we can avoid implying a reason. In this case, the entry before Zhanzhao does a much better job at avoiding causality (i.e. he change his name prior to becoming a full-time pastor). Additionally, the link provided (footnote 3) leads nowhere, thus one cannot reexamine Zhanzhao's contribution. Clamtow (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original link provided was from a long dead link, which was why I tried to be helpful and reproduced the text as it appeared in the article in my explanation above. In any case, I have switched the referencing to point to the physical, non-online origin/source of the article. You can look it up on the microfilm archives at the library if you wish to further verify it.

I also noticed that you removed Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}'s comments on the issue in one of your [edits]. Since you are a new user, I am just giving you a warning that this is not allowed here in Wikipedia. I have reinstated the edit. You can do such stuff on your own user talk page (to a certain extent), but an article talk page is "community/public property" and meant for common discussion. Every voice is valued here. Unexplained comment removal origination from other editors is a serious offense. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took Dave's advice and thus deleted his comment as it does not pertian to Joesph Prince (nor does this sentence nor your untoward address to me). As such, we should keep on topic, and concerns regarding my editing can be left on my page. Thank you.Clamtow (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not how talk pages work here. If you had read up on basic wikipedia policy which I did drop on your talk page, you would have realised it. Since you act in such a manner, I have to assume that you disregarded what was posted there and have to reiterate that need to be civil to other editors here.

As for keeping on topic, I have pretty much covered it on top what I feel, as did Dave in the edit you removed. Note that discussion comments are not just for you alone, but also to any other editors in the future who may have similar questions about policies. Stop "silencing" others who are trying to help. Your disrespect for another editor's valid edits would make it hard for any discussion to stay on topic.Zhanzhao (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]