This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Sydney / Politics B‑class Mid‑importance Hillsong Church is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Christianity: Charismatic B‑class Mid‑importance 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. Christian music B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Evangelical Christianity C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Evangelical 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.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The section about Frank Houston is larger than the main article about Frank Houston. I suggest the content be moved there. L32007 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the section titled: "Sexual abuse committed by founder's father"...if so, we should leave a paragraph summary, as we generally do when linking to a main article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd to use a site that disagrees with the doctrine, to describe the doctrine of the church.

The use of GotQuestions as a source for the first section of the article is absurd. https://www.gotquestions.org/Hillsong-Church.html It's akin to using their section on the catholic church, to describe the catholic church. https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Church.html Their article on the catholic church claims that Catholic "treat [.., Mary] as a fourth member of the Trinity". That they're "heretical".

I've removed it, it's not unbiased. It pushes what is a baptist(?) viewpoint very hard, and has articles on basically every other denomination accusing them of all sorts of things. L32007 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. They're not word of faith. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section is 1/3 of the content, WP:CSECTION states that articles should avoid even having a controversy/criticsm section. I'm not sure what to do with this section of the article, any changes I make to make it more concise and give it less weight so that it doesn't continue to weigh the articles bias towards negativity have in the past been reverted quite quickly.

The entire section exists to list negative viewpoints, which is why WP:CSECTION states that should be avoided. It has gotten to the point where it is merely a list of gripes ala WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with some sections being about non-issues/rumors

• Criticism of finances -- A tabloid claim that a crime happened, was then refuted by the Government and the people claimed to be victimised.
• Alleged Vote Stacking in Australian Idol -- A claim that a TV show was rigged, of which the primary source is a defunct tabloid TV show Today Tonight.
• Stance on homosexuality and same-sex marriage -- Doesn't even mention any controversy, just invites the reader to create one in their mind.
• Mark Driscoll appearance -- A man was going to speak at a conference until he was discovered as a misogynist, then he didn't, and was interviewed about the misogyny instead.
• Carl Lentz rise and fall -- Is OK, other than the two quotes that exist there to provide commentary on how bad the church is. Yes, it's sourced, but WP:BALANCE. Additionally it probably belongs in a section dedicated to Hillsong NYC, rather than under "Controversies" for the reasons listed in WP:CSECTION.

Please let me know your thoughts. L32007 (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to merge the content into the history. We only include what RSes state. If this is what people are writing about (and readers want to see it) then we include it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read a few of the sources for the Australian Idol section of the article, and the sourcing appears very selectively used. This source https://web.archive.org/web/20090221015416/http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0%2C23663%2C22558938-10229%2C00.html makes it clear that none of the finalists were from Hillsong. The same source is used to claim that "Hillsong members and former members indicated that some level of co-ordinated support of church members on Australian Idol has taken place": where in fact the "Hillsong members" "indicat[ing]" support, is actually just a pastor for an entirely unrelated church admitting that he told his "church family" to vote for his churches candidate.

Which just goes to show, the content being kept here is just an indiscriminate list of allegations, including refuted and disproven allegations like the Australian Idol and Aboriginal Finances. L32007 (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As remarked above, the Australian Idol section seemed pretty thinly supported and not even very coherent. I have deleted it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree that section should have been removed. It seemed pretty thin to me too. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CRITICISM is an ESSAY, not policy, and while it may be nice to try to AVOID such sections, sometimes it is hard to put the content elsewhere. For example: Capitalism#Criticism, which also has its own complete article: Criticism of capitalism. In this article (Hillsong Church), some of these events seem hard to locate anywhere else...I agree with Walter Görlitz: these events could be moved to the "History" section, but Reliably Sourced statements shouldn't be removed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the content is very indiscriminate as I've outlined above. Whoever is making the criticism under "Stance on homosexuality and same-sex marriage" isn't even sourced. That appears to be added off-hand so that it can be a criticism to fit in this section. Secondly, as for "Reliably Sourced statements shouldn't be removed". There is an argument to keep the quote from Carl's mistress, but the statement from Tanya Levin is irrelevant (she wrote a book about her experiences in Hillsong in the 90s (wrote the book in 07, but the experiences are from the 90s), and only serves to add to the bias that the section fosters. She markets herself as a "Hillsong Critic", if we got a quote from someone who markets themselves as a Hillsong apologist, I'm sure you'd agree that it simply isn't encyclopaedic. It really only furthers my point that the criticisms section is just a indiscriminate collection of grievances that violates the Neutral Point of View Policy very clearly. L32007 (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was drawn to editing this article as it appeared biased in favour of the church, at least at the point I was reading. I read some mainstream media coverage about the financial scandal with RACA back in 2005, and came to this Wikipedia article to read more about it. Here's what the article stated yesterday, before I first edited it: [1]

"It was alleged that Hillsong had paid staff members with money given as a government grant for the assistance of the Riverstone Aboriginal community.[77] However, letters of apology from both the Riverstone Aboriginal Community and from the minister of justice and customs, were later published on the Hillsong website.[78]"

Firstly, this was written as if the letter of apology completely negates all allegations, whereas it does not refute that Hillsong paid their staff members with the grant money at all. In fact, the apology from RACA is rather non-specific, but more importantly, it has no non-primary sources, rather it only cites the Hillsong website. (The apology is also written on behalf of new staff members at RACA who appear to have not been involved in the original controversy; Hillsong have acknowledged previously trying to make things with RACA "amicabl[e]" by offering them six-figure sums of money. You're welcome to draw your own conclusion between those two undeniable facts, but your conclusion would be irrelevant of course as we don't allow original research). Secondly, for an incident that received considerable and ongoing mainstream media coverage and even mention in parliament, with fine details about alleged wrongdoings (I could easily make the section three times larger than it currently is, though not without violating WP:UNDUE of course), it was brushed over here with a single sentence. In fact, the primary source trying to negate all bad media coverage takes up more space than the allegations themselves. That's one hell of a case of bias. I couldn't help but wonder if this biased wording was recent, so I did a little digging and found something really shocking. Its been spun this way for many years, and previously contained even more original research. Here's where the primary source was first added back in November 2012: [2]. It was added by Adammoore1982, a single-purpose account who for nine years only made edits to articles related to this church (though thankfully hasn't logged in since 2019). Adam also removed information and a source where Hillsong acknowledges paying their staff with grant money, and instead says they did not pay their staff with the grant money (with no reference of course since this information conflicts with what was originally referenced). The uncited additions were finally removed in August 2014: [3], though original research regarding what the primary source "confirmed" remained. In July 2018, L32007 decided to add more original research, going a step further and saying the apology refutes all allegations, rather than just appears to: [4]. Thankfully the following day Walter Görlitz removed the last obvious OR [5], though issues of bias (and balance considering the available sources) remained. I don't understand how L32007 can complain this article is biased against the church, when this clear issue was able to remain in the article for nine years. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I thought this couldn't get more biased in favour of the church, the bar is raised. Have a look at this recent IP edit: [6]. So for nine years the article stated the minister of justice apologised to Hillsong. It was removed recently on the grounds the source was dead (and was only a primary source to begin with anyway). The source has been added back with a live URL, alongside the original wording that the minister of justice apologised. Here's the letter: [7]. If anyone had read the letter over those nine years, they would have noticed there's no apology in it. None. There's acknowledgement that no "specific concerns" were raised with the minister regarding the original application (incidentally that's not saying they weren't raised elsewhere), but no apology whatsoever. What's absolutely amazing is that this remained for nine years, and that someone is still to this day trying to deceive readers be attributing false statements to primary sources. I've removed the statement, but I'd strongly encourage everyone who watches this page to pay particularly close attention to any IP edits to this page for bias, original research and POV pushing, as I'm certain whoever is responsible for this will try again. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously read the linked letter, and that link you offered is NOT the same. L32007 (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@L32007: Your lies don't withstand much scrutiny. Hillsong uploaded the letter to their website for the first time in November 2012, the very same month it was added as a source to this Wikipedia article. Courtesy of the the Internet Archive, here's the media release section of the Hillsong Church website in January 2013 [8], and here's the letter in question as it appeared that month: [9]. Notice it's exactly same as the version currently hosted on their website today [10], exactly the same as every other archived snapshot of the website between 2012 and today, exactly the same version an IP editor tried to add to the article in July 2021 (the link I offered above), and exactly the same version that appeared on their website in July 2018 when you falsely attributed statements to it [11]. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate you accusing me of lying, I am acting in good faith. You have a copy of the letter from the minister, which granted is not an apology. But the letter from the Aboriginal Community mentioned in the edit you linked to IS an apology and IS still missing -- and is NOT the letter you linked to. L32007 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently disputed in court is the statement "Although Brian Houston, then National President of the Assemblies of God denomination in Australia, was legally obligated to report the crime, he did not do so" - if you look at the reference it is to a news article, that news article does not have this assertion. This is a legal assertion and is currently being tested in the criminal court, and as such should be removed until there is a legal finding, the legal dispute will be resolved based on interpretations of Crimes Act 1900 s316(1A)(c) as to whether Brian Houston believed "on reasonable grounds that the alleged victim does not wish the information to be reported to police or another appropriate authority". Moreover, there will have to be legal determination of what constitutes an "appropriate authority" 132.234.228.129 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Controversial charge - Double standards for “Directors not acting on crime” by ODPP (Director_of_Public_Prosecutions_(New_South_Wales)

Where justice and the related laws can be disparate and neither a Director of Public Prosecutions or a Director of a Church organisation is guilty of the initial subject crime;

i. The DPP himself is not charged after repeatedly "not acting on a crime" by refusing to prosecute two rapists for a recent death of a woman by a sexual assault who obviously herself can’t report it to Police, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Babb#Controversy_around_the_failure_to_prosecute_suspects_accused_of_the_sexual_assault_and_manslaughter_of_Lynette_Daley

ii. His office then approves charges against a Director of a Church organisation for allegedly "not acting on a crime" by allegedly not reporting decades old sexual assault to Police despite the victim, by then a living adult male, able to report it to Police himself and able to call the Director of the Church as a possible witness.

2. Controversial timing of the charge – Directors of ODPP were “Not acting on crime" when the charge is announced (i.e. They weren't on duty at the time)

The charges of the Hillsong Director were announced Thursday 5 August in the 1-month window between the 10 year terms of the outgoing ODPP Director Lloydd Babb who finished on Saturday on 17 July and the new ODPP Director, Sally Dowling starting Monday 16 August. Hence they were announced less than 3 weeks after a deputy DPP Peter McGrath started filling in as acting DPP but who himself was not destined for the directorship at the time.

I suggest a section on this should be also be included on the page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Public_Prosecutions_(New_South_Wales)Ajust4u (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! In answer to your question, we can include statements like those if we have sources saying that: Please see: WP:OR and WP:RS.---Avatar317^(talk) 04:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And provided that they are not WP:UNDUE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"in contravention of a prevailing government health order."

Contradicts

"While the state government's public health order prohibits singing and dancing at most recreational and public venues and gatherings, it did not apply to religious gatherings."

Either they were breaking the rules, or they weren't. And because no fine was issued, it seems they were not breaking the rules. Suggest changing language to make it clear that it appeared to be breaking the rules. L32007 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to again highlight the fact the controversy section is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Criticism from a former member" is not a controversy, It's a woman who appears to be trying to sell a book and promote her new 2021 podcast. (Relevancy?) L32007 (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new section for an existing discussion after another editor points out irrefutable evidence that you're lying and have manipulated sources is not helping your case.

"It's a woman" - your choice of language when attempting to attack her credibility is noted and interesting. The woman you have a problem with, Tanya Levin, not only has a name, but she clearly satisfies notability guidelines. As such, comments from her are most certainly relevant, as long as they have reliable sourcing and due weight. The section could be reworded or the information merged elsewhere, sure, but the only thing irrelevant here is your personal, unsourced opinion that she is only criticising Hillsong to sell her book and promote her podcast. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]