Talk:Kathryn Kuhlman

nPOV

She was a controversal woman, someone has to write about this. And something about her relationship with Pastor Benny Hinn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.157.171 (talk • contribs)

I've seen this problem over and over again on wikipedia.... This article is an exposee. This is a genre completely innapropriate for an encyclopedia of any sort. Articles of this sort here are all too often used to tear a personality down, and as personal venting space for the critic/author.

This one needs to be edited to include more biographical information, greater focus on life acheivement and legacy, and a more objective view point inserted.

Consider 1) What sort of information is it that readers of this forum are searching for when they access the site? Most likely this is a historical gloss of the personage, a brief biography, a placement in their social and historical context, and why they are important enough today for them to have read the name and need to find out more. Not, in otherwords a refutation or proof of the claims of the individual. 2) It is not fair or reasonable, when mentioning a particular claim of the subject of a biography, in every instance to add counterevidence immediately afterwards. This is not being objective. It is in fact being less objective, than had the author of such an article provided supporting evidence for the subject's assertations. You see, disputing and pointing out _only_ inconsistancies in this manner is the hallmark of great exposee . It portrays the subject as though there were only these points that might be counterproven in the case. It sets things up as though there had been only inconsistancies in the life. In otherwords it casts into doubt everything the subject asserts, and in short defames their character.

We know objectively however, that their _are_ always two sides to the story. Other writers might select a set of circumstances that portrayed this particular subject in a very different light. Neither one though is appropriate for this forum however. If a point is in dispute, leave it out. Or say rather, "It is _claimed_ that.....such an such a circumstance ocurred etc" Leave the readership to their judgment and further research to form an opinion. If absolutely necesary, include the refutations in a "controversy" section of the article. It is not alright for that section to be the very article itself though. If nothing else, at least include various view points: Employ this format "Critics claim/assert......"/ "Supporters claim/assert....."

Now, granted, when you include links and sources in your article (which by the way are made extremely poor use of in this article - the citations would disgrace a college freshman)you will naturally find more "positive" writing on this particular subject -that is, more of the opinion of her supporters who are less inclinded for a variety of reasons to be objective. It is only too natural to wish to balance that whith more a more "negative" viewpoint, lest you refer your readers with seemingly full confidence to those aforementioned less than perfectly objective primary sources. Wikipedia however is not the place to publish this counterbalance. It is not any one individuals soap box, or platform to communicate their _personal_ views to the world as though they were indisputable fact.(Be aware, some readers, especially in the younger generations attribute (mistakenly) to wikipedia almost infallible authority.) If it is desired, anyone may create a "Kathyrn Kuhlman refutation/exposee site" elsewhere on the huge expanse of the internet, and link it as one of the sources for the article along with her autobiography, etc. If that be thoughtful, well researched and supported, and moderately objecttive, it will receive the due consideration of its readers and those who are refered to it from the wikipedia article. Wikipedia itself however is not to be a venue for that type of article. The authors of this little tirade (along with others of its ilk) should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing to break down the credibility of this forum that so many others have worked so hard to build.**** MattDiClemente (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Kathryn Kuhlman did not have a relationship with Benny Hinn. She never even met him. Benny Hinn's ministry was initially supported by the Kathryn Kuhlman Foundation AFTER her death.

This article is about as encyclopedic as they come. Expansion of this article to include discussions about her relationship to Benny Hinn could be very difficult to stay neutral, especially as most of what is really know about this subject comes from Benny Hinns own books.Paulrach 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a critical assessment of her supposed abilities. I reverted the deletions that white washed the article, but more should be added since, as noted above, she was controversial. Arbusto 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC).

Kathryn Kuhlman never professed to have any abilities or talents. She never called herself a faith healer, and detested this moniker. In her own words "she merely pointed the way.

Yep, there were clearly some attempts at white-washing and POV-pushing. - WarriorScribe 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Read Gwen Lanning's story - [1] One of many miracles medically verified by several doctors including Viola Fryman D.O F.A.A.O. Considered one of the best known ostopathic physician/scientists worldwide.

The citation of a website intended to push a specific point of view is not compelling nor does it serve as evidence. There is no indication that this "miracle" has been verified as such by any reputable medical resource. "Wishful thinking" doesn't qualify as evidence. - WarriorScribe 01:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Real Miracles: Indisputable Medical Evidence That God Heals by Dr. Richard H. Casdorpf - verifies miracles that took place in Kuhlman's meetings.

POV publications are not sufficient to establish validity of claims to miracles. There is no scientifically verifiable evidence that Kuhlman ever healed anyone, and whether or not she used the phrase "faith healer" to describe herself, it is in wide use with reference to her. - WarriorScribe 04:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Fraudster and Religious Scandals categories. They are POV and there is nothing in this article to justify their inclusion. Jammycakes 14:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There should at least be some balance to this article, she couldn't have been ALL bad. Hundreds of thousands of people watch these people like Benny Hinn and Ken Copeland, and they get something out of it, so good for them. If that floats your boat, great. If not, we shouldn't try to bash on them or people who like them. That's just the same as them trying to push their point of view on us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.177.158 (talk • contribs)

With the various edits that have been made over time, this article has achieved a NPOV -- good work all. I'm removing the tag. -- technopilgrim 18:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

preachers

Her life did not match her sermons. I heard her once in Akron Ohio. Great speaker, but like so many others, her true motivation was the almighty buck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litljimi (talk • contribs)

This is encyclopedic content? Do you have verifiable proof that she was motivated by the 'almighty buck?'

Discrepancies: Charismatic or Pentecostal?

A discrepancy exists within the this article by identifying Kuhlman with the "Pentecostal arm of Christianity" (1st paragraph) against the later statement of her being a Charismatic. Interesting discrepancy to say the least. Her ministry proceeds the general date given to the birth of the Charismatic movement. However her ministry came to exist within the time from of it and her thoughts seemed ideologically more compatibe with the Charismatic branch the Pentecostal branch. Additionally she emerged from a mainline denomination which continued to have major impact upon her thought throughout her ministerial years as evident by her speeches/sermons. Since I am new to this whole wikipedia thing, I am not going to make any edits to this article because I am not sure the proper protocol for it. However since Church History is the field of my academic training, I would tend to argue that Kuhlman was in the end an "independent Charismatic". Though "independent Pentecostal" may be argued quite strongly also. I argue for "independent Charismatic" on the basis of her thought and ministeria practices. So I am pro that the line "Pentecostal arm of Christianity" be changed to "Charismatic arm of Christianity" since there does indeed exist practical and academic distinction between the two. (Ryabe 02:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

I encourage you to be bold & make edits to the article. No doubt the confusion in the article comes from the broader meaning of the word "charismatic" to indicate those who demonstrate the charismatic gifts, versus the term "Charismatic" which a historian would use to describe the movement that arose in the 2nd half of the 20th century. One caution: in the end you come down that Kuhlman was an "independent Charismatic". That is well-informed opinion, but opinion nonetheless. It would be good Wikipedian style to find a published source that comes to the same conclusion which could be cited as a reference. If that can't be found, I'd recommend leaving it out entirely. Please give it your best shot (or even a reasonable shot!) and I'm sure the article will be better off for your efforts. -- technopilgrim 18:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference 1

I would like to read the parts of Mr. Randi's book that are referenced in this article, but none of the citation sites on wikipedia's book reference page were really much use to me, and also I can find no information on Dr. Robert Nolen. I want to know how James Randi found out people were coming to the meeting without wheel chairs and I want to read his exact words, plus I want to know more about the study that Dr. Robert Nolen conducted. Unless the references are openly available and easy to check, I'm unimpressed with the little numbers next to the text as long as the citation is as shallow as it is right now. Maybe I'm wrong, the bit about the wheelchairs seems like POV hearsay, and a reference to a reference of Dr. Nolen's study seems like a bit of a stretch. If somebody can get more direct info on this, and hopefully from a source more reputable than a book that was admittedly written to defraud faith healers, I would feel a whole lot better about all this. In short, I'm having trouble connecting these dots. Also, the scare quotes on "healing crusades" don't really seem necessary, that is, if nobody is particularly attached to them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.15.23 (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

First, his name is William A. Nolen, not Robert, which might be why you are having difficultly. I suggest you first read the newspapers at google's news archive; Randi's claims are well-sourced. Then try sending James Randi or the James Randi Educational Foundation an email. http://www.randi.org I added some newspapers talking about William A. Nolen's study, which is/was well-known. It's mention in Time Magazine, NY Times and more than a dozen newspapers (that's just a quick google search), not including his book and peer-reviewed articles on faith healing (like this peer-reviewed journal). "Healing" should be in quotes unless it has been verified with a WP:RS. Tgreach (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

71.193.15.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) removed mention of the study and it has been reverted. Do not remove a famous study mentioned in the press and conducted by a famous doctor. Tgreach (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

David Wilkerson

I have read that David Wilkerson ministered alongside Kathryn Kuhlman back in the 70s. I believe he preached the gospel so souls could be saved, then Kathryn demonstrated a healing minsitry. Anyone else have information on this?71.31.170.98 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Miss Kuhlman appeared many times at Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship meetings, and perhaps on the same platform as Mr. Wilkerson. My understanding is that she worked with him and supported his work in New York with street gang members, by sponsoring young people from New York City to be sent to a Youth for Christ camp in the country. 74.5.21.142 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard H. Casdorph violates FRINGE/RS

Including the claim Kuhlman has cured terminally ill people with Richard H. Casdorph's book fails on two policies: 1) WP:RS (the website is not a RS) and 2) miracles are WP:FRINGE.

1) Richard H. Casdorph's work is not a WP:RS. The webpage cited as the source, for example, mispelled Richard H. Casdorph's name and its not a peer-review/news source. Furthermore, the webpage says their source is Richard H. Casdorph's 1976 book published by a Christian publishing house, which is hardly where peer-reviewed medical science gets published.

2) Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories says fringe beliefs, such as miracle claims, get included in wikipedia if they are notable and "judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." Do we have any WP:RS about this Christian publishing house book from the 1970s?

Additionally, Richard H. Casdorph also teaches in Toxic Metal Syndrome that "physical decline is optional."[2] Again, showing a pattern of FRINGE view. C56C (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The material has been removed pending compliance with the above wikipedia policies. C56C (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This biography, if you can call it that, is a sham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.177.43 (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Undid White Wash

A user removed sourced material and added an unsourced POV hagiography. Please add sourced material only. Do not remove sourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pllacandy (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that the hagiography was copy and pasted from: http://www.jwsministries.org/1029/kathryn-kuhlman/ . This is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pllacandy (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the above reference to jwsministries.org and found it empty, so I have found it on the wayback machine. I am not sure if this is the first or second caching of the page, but I did go to: https://web.archive.org/web/20110726212205/http://www.jwsministries.org/1029/kathryn-kuhlman/

to read the article. Ricgal (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathryn Kuhlman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403195348/http://kathrynkuhlman.com/ to http://www.kathrynkuhlman.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kathryn Kuhlman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hagiography

An anon-IP made an edit earlier today, pointing out that a section (indeed, the article) needs major attention. And the article itself has had a neutrality query at the top since 2015. So I'm setting about some tidying up, which will probably end up in removing lots of unsupported claims. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Persecution by the Church.

Kathryn Kuhlman is known to have been persecuted by the church for being divorced. This could be included in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quizipedia (talk • contribs) 07:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: RELI 340 - Religion in America From 1800

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2023 and 5 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tddavis11 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AmerRelHist (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)