Jump to content

Talk:Kenneth Copeland/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article topic lost?

I've noticed that most of the POV comments -- rightly deleted -- concern the teachings of the Copelands', moreover the majority of the pro-Kenneth Copeland POV comments seem to be centered around agreeing with these teachings. Or not agreeing, as the case may be. However, isn't this article mainly about the person? I can appreciate that his controversial persona and his teachings are intimately intertwined, but the main topic of the article is Kenneth Copeland the person, however. Even if I find it mindhammering in the extreme that a person allegedly doing "God's work" spends thousands of dollars aimed at charity to shoot defenceless animals for personal fun, I will not let that POV affect my commentary. --Tirolion 14:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Never thought of that. WAVY 10 Fan 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Standards and lawsuits

I have used Wikipedia on occasion but to read rants like this, so utterly unobjective, is a waste. This is not informational, but mere gossip diatribe. Are there no standards for Wikipedia? [Unsigned comment by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Special:Contributions&target=69.149.67.47 User:69.149.67.47]] 06:19, 20 April 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.195.222 (talk • contribs)

There no standards for Wikipedia. They allow prople to report gossip and false accusations based on their opinions and dislikes. Wikipedia will eventually end up paying millions of dollars to defend itself in court if they don't put a stop to this! I know a law firm that is currently studying this situation for a legal action against Wikipedia. Stay tuned! 02:31, 19 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.67.47 (talk • contribs)
Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. David L Rattigan 07:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Text from other sites

The text added by 24.141.218.124 was lifted from other web sites, such as:

It is probably a copyrighted article, and it has nothing to do with Kenneth Copeland, so I removed it. Brian Kendig 20:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Edits by User:69.149.186.229

I thought that the recents edits were somewhat propaganda-ish, and he/she also removed some comments. Here are the actual comments of the user in question. Logical2u 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The mission of Kenneth Copeland Ministries (and Eagle Mountain International Church) is to teach Christians worldwide who they are in Christ Jesus and how to live a victorious life in their covenant rights and privileges. The fulfillment of that mission takes place when those believers become rooted and grounded enough in God's Word to reach out and teach others these same principles.
We are called to lead people, primarily born-again believers, to the place where they operate proficiently in the biblical principles of faith, love, healing, prosperity, redemption and righteousness, and to the place where they can share those principles with others.
We are called to assist believers in becoming rooted, grounded and established in the Word of God by teaching them to give God's Word first place in their lives (Colossians 1:23, Psalm 112).
We are called to reveal the mysteries, the victorious revelations of God's Word, that have been hidden from the ages (Colossians 1:25-28).
We are called to build an army of mature believers, bringing them from milk to meat, from religion to reality. We are called to train them to become skillful in the word of righteousness, to stand firm in the spiritual warfare against the kingdom of darkness (Hebrews 5:12-14, Ephesians 6:10-18).
We are called to proclaim that "Jesus Is Lord" from the top of the world to the bottom and all the way around.The vision is being accomplished through the ministry efforts of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Eagle Mountain International Church and staff on a worldwide scale through the local church and the use of television, campaigns, conventions, books, tapes, recordings and personal correspondence and is multiplied through the financial support of other ministries of like purpose.

As someone who was once involved in a word-faith church (and eventually saw through its heresies) I must say the article is quite good. I think it might be helpful to mention some of the books which critique this movement.--Niceguy2all 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits by bendineen

I recently deleted the 'testimonials' section, added by someone who obviously support Kenneth Copeland, their comments were simply disguised as neutral by the tag 'testimonials', but I really think it's not appropriate on Wikipedia. See history for all text deleted Bendineen 05:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC) (Ben Dineen is a teacher of Taijiquan)71.28.69.18 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Wayne

POV?

This article could, if someone isn't careful, deteriorate into a "he said, she said" revert war.

"Kenneth Copeland has never claimed to be a successful pop singer before turning his life over to ministry work following his conversion on November 2, 1962."

Also, wouldn't he have been more of a "one-hit-wonder"?

WAVY 10 02:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Copeland said in his book "The first 30 years" that he did make a successful album, but he was drafted into the military and by the time he got back, everyone had forgoten about him and the record company did not want to make another album.  Tcrow777  talk 00:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Statements

My family's fairly familiar with KCM, but we have none of the items where the controversial statements were stated, so I have no way to verify.

WAVY 10 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have heard Kenneth Copeland say that if you give towards God or the "kingdom" you will receive 100-fold. He does have it printed on his donation envelops but I have never heard him say that if the donor gives to his organization they will receive 100-fold. He has promoted donations to other organizations. But it’s a stretch to say that the CBS-news article referenced in the article supports this extrapolation. Please remove it.  Gabriello  talk  02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a stretch, even for the organization that gave us Memo-gate. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Album listing?

Since Copeland has also become prominent for his musical recordings, would there be a good reason to add at the very least a list of his music albums?

205.244.108.166 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to Christianity

I have deleted the exact date. Copeland's own autobiography states he asked Jesus to "come into [his] heart." His decision came two weeks after his wife had done likewise.

Not sure but the term born again would probably be better as conversion implies that he converted from another religion. Any opinions?Osakadan 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about this man, so the phrase "Conversion to Christianity" made me wonder what he was before. His European sounding name made me conclude he likely wasn't Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist. The only likely alternatives I could think of were Scientologist or Pagan. Could someone please clarify?Krumhorns (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
He often stated his parents were Christians; but he seemed to not care much about the faith of his parents as a youngster. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted the sermon quotes that were deleted. While I agree that Wp is not the place for sermons, these particular quotes illustrate the controversy that surrounds Copeland. Perhaps they can be edited down a little. (unsigned)

I did it to help save the article, because if you persist in retaining inappropriate material --and just try to find similar material in any similar article--it is highly likely that the article may be noticed for deletion. I myself am strongly in favor of keeping an article on this --and all other--religious movements, because it is not appropriate for WP to judge on theological truth
But you mention controversy. Nowhere in the article does it contain any opinion by anyone other than himself DGG 04:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading, I certainly agree with you that some statements need to be deleted. I just disagreed with wholesale deletion. Some of the quotes are quite controversial and illustrate Copeland's stance on the 2004 Tsunami being caused because of non-belief, along with Katrina. Give me a day or 2 and I will edit it down. Obviously I am a bit anti-Copeland so it needs to be checked for POV. I will try to be objective though.Osakadan 04:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. But by controversial I meant that there must be at quote from someone who does not support him. Let's see how it looks. DGG 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

continuing

Well, it looks like the long and inappropriate quotes are still there. Please look at other WP articles on religious groups and see how they are written. So I removed some. As for the short quotes, I see they were sourced, and that's OK--they do communicate very clearly the nature of his beliefs. But talk about Katrina does not. I'm going slowly, I just did one section. I'm still considering, and I continue to think that the entire section there belongs on his web site, not here. DGG 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I removed most of the quotes from the article, as they were unsourced and potentially controversial (one section was even titled "controversial statements"). As such, they should be removed, per WP:BLP.Chunky Rice 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Formatted

I was kind of shocked on how much discussion there is over an article that has so little in it and that it was so badly formatted. I've formatted it and I hope no one has any problems with that. Fanra 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

POV One Way, then POV in Opposite Direction...

It's almost like I look at this page one moment and it's heavily critical of Copeland's teachings, then next thing you know, it's got a glowing description of him. What gives? WAVY 10 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am working on rephrasing this article to sound beter with NPOV.  Tcrow777  talk 02:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tcrow777, looks like you may have to fix it again, because it's violating POV again (this time in a pro-Copeland slant). WAVY 10 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
NPOV is not always clear, changing a page with a lot of POV is hard. What is this "pro-Copeland slant" you are talking about?  Tcrow777  talk  07:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
By that, I meant that there is virtually NOTHING expressed pertaining to criticisms of Copeland's teachings. WAVY 10 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I know nothing about criticisms of Copeland's teachings, another editor will have to help this article with that or you could edit the article yourself.  Tcrow777  talk  18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite?

Does this article really need a complete rewrite?  Tcrow777  talk 23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Be real! Kenneth Copeland is a huckster making bank on poor souls. Stop dancing around the elephant by pointing fingers at others. Denial is a terrible state.64.215.225.11 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

MmBabies Watch

I noticed a few weeks ago MmBabies and associated sockpuppets hit this page with the standard stuff (i.e.: using the TBN and assorted Houston TV logos, bad math, the chicken and fries image stolen from the KFC page). I would keep an eye out for this user, especially considering he sometimes has a tendency to vandalize links in the form of threats.

For instance, on the Gospel Bill page, I have a reference to Kellie (Kenneth's younger daughter) singing "It's God" on one of the videos they usually had toward the end of an episode, and the sockpuppets often added "comments" to the effect of wanting to kill Kellie with a bunch of eggs (again with the fuzzy math) because she didn't hit a high note. (See the history. It's not pretty.) WAVY 10 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The disputed section

Regarding the section which our IP friends have been removing, I read it carefully and agree that one sentence of it is inappropriate - see diff. This sentence refers to criticism of the WOF movement, but not of Copeland himself. We don't write biographies like "Mr. X is a Y and here are 50 reasons Y is bad". The other part they want to remove is just whitewashing and unless someone can present a good reason to remove it, it should stay. --B 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. I don't think Walter Martin said a whole lot about Copeland or other WOF types before he died. As for Hank, if we include anything it needs to be specifically about Kenneth (or for other articles, specifically about {insert WOF teacher here}). WAVY 10 Fan 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, though if he is a prominent preacher in the Word of Faith that should probably be mentioned in the article and linked to the movement. -Chunky Rice 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I added "Word of Faith" to the intro and wikified "Word Faith movement" later in the article. --B 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that 69.149.76.114 has removed the criticism material once again. If he pulls that stunt one more time, he gets blocked. -- azumanga 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Just requested semi-protection for this article, as we had another editor remove the aforementioned section(s). WAVY 10 Fan 13:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Copeland and hate

I was watching Copeland's TV show sometimes in the past (in 1980s or 1990s) and by coincident on that day he was preaching hate, saying things against Islam and Muslims, he was saying that Muslims worship the devil. Since then I began to view him as an evil person. Is there anyway we can add this into the article? Is there any more documented stuff about him spreading hate?--LloydHawk 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding a section on quotations so long as they are sourced; such as the date and time of original, or re-airing of his program. Patris Magnus (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how saying someone is worshiping another god is tantamount to preaching hate. It would be good if you could be able to substantiate your claim, LloydHawk.  Gabriello  talk  02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure he recorded many 1,000s of preachings so to find that specific one would be nearly impossible. I wanted to know if he was known for talking this way about other religions.--LloydHawk (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:|225px|]]

Is there any way to get rid of the above? I tried editing the infobox template, but it only made it worse (resulting in me reverting). -- azumanga 20:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

CWSusan: Possible Sockpuppeteering

I think CWSusan is behind the two IPs that have made the similar removals to what CWSusan has done to the Kenneth Copeland article. On that account, plus the fact that the only action CWSusan has done so far has been the Copeland article, I suspect sockpuppeteering on CWSusan's part. -- azumanga 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Another "What the heck" vandalism incident

I've heard Copeland's teachings being denounced with fairly stinging terminology, but where on earth did this come from?

Most recent revert

WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kenneth copeland.jpg

Image:Kenneth copeland.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Biographical Info

This article needs more biographical information for him. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctrine

I'm kinda at a loss for where to find good sources for this. If you Google "Kenneth Copeland" and heresy, you can find a gracious plenty apologetics websites that talk about how Copeland's theology is unbiblical and heretical. It isn't just WOF - he goes further than that. But I'm at a loss for good sources. I wish CARM covered him. I don't think the article needs to be nothing but a criticism of the man ... nothing like that ... but it does need a sentence or two that make it clear that what he teaches is NOT mainline Christianity. --B (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, but I'd keep a close watch on the page to make sure it doesn't get taken out. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that it is WOF Word of Faith. I haven't seen anything that would suggest otherwise. Perhaps you can point it out to me? And you are right about the websites. There seems to be a lot of sites that go beyond disagreeing with him, and seem down right hateful.  Gabriello  talk  03:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Using YouTube for Cited Sources?

I was going to add the following news brief by CBS Evening News to the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVpQlASsT5U

Some one called User:B removed it and said it was possible illegal, It is Fair Use and I feel it should be fine as it has much coverage of the entire Investigation.... Gaming4JC (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. The policy specifically addresses youtube links - "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright." --B (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... well, the movie is only 3mins of the 30min news broadcast. Do you think this could be considered possible Fair Use (less than 20% of original broadcast)? If so I believe it is a reputable cited source. :-/ Gaming4JC (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply trimming it down doesn't make it a fair use. There needs to be something transformative for fair use to apply. If you were using it for critical commentary on CBS (ie, showing a brief clip, then offering your own commentary on their investigative reporting) that would qualify for fair use. (It wouldn't be usable on Wikipedia because it would be original research, but the concept of fair use is a legal one and exists outside of our fair use policy.) But this Youtube video is not at all transformative - it's no different than if you were to use Kazaa to send someone an mp3 of your favorite song. The medium is different, but the principle is the same. --B (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Different points of observation do not thereby create seperate conflicting 'realities' but merely represent different perspective within an all inclusive teaching of Christianity. Therefore it is unfair for those whom disagree with ones teaching to attack openly via edits.-- User Darren Meade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.29.160 (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Senate Investigation

The text: However, at this point, Sen. Grassley has failed to reveal or identify any violation of IRS non-compliance whatsoever but simply stated that Jesus rode a donkey for transportation; which most credible theologians consider Grassley's scriptural interpretation as simply bad theology. seems a bit too POV. does anyone have a problem with that sentence being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spauldio (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be modified into something like this:

However, at this point, the Copelands have stated that Sen. Grassley has failed to reveal or identify any violation of IRS non-compliance whatsoever.

What do you think? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Could work, but was that statement made by the Copelands or by whoever edited the entry?Spauldio (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

IRS

Did I miss something? Where is a citation for the statement "according to IRS officials are in strict compliance with IRS regulations as voluntary audits have disclosed in detail." The citation 17 is a news clip that does not quote any IRS official or any official document.

This is the assertion in the article:

...yet, according to IRS officials are in strict compliance with IRS regulations as voluntary audits have disclosed in detail.[17]

This is the closest thing in [17] to any statement about the IRS :
"The Copeland ministry declined requests for an interview, and pointed to an accounting firm's declaration that all jet travel complies with federal tax laws.. "

Do you all see the same thing I see? The statement that "according to IRS officials are in strict compliance" is nowhere at all in the cited news article. All the news article says is that an accounting firm declared that all jet travel complies with federal tax laws. This is VERY different than what was stated as fact in the article. An accounting firm is NOT "IRS officials". For all we know, the accounting firm is a Copeland relative or supporter, saying whatever the Copelands wanted. This news article says nothing about the accounting firm or in what context the accountant's declaration was made.

Accordingly, I changed this statement to accurately reflect the information in the news article the previous editor cited.

Hank Hanegraaff

Could someone give another reference for Hanegraaff's stand on Grassley's investigation. The reference cited doesn't have any mention of Hanegraaff. If I don't see an update, I'll remove the last sentence since there seems to be no verifiable link for this information. forgot to sign.Spauldio (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To ask for Hank Hanegraaff quotes in regard to the Grassley investigation or of the Copeland's in general is paramount to asking for Osama Bin Laden quotes about Israel's right to exist. Hanegraaff is the farthest thing from a neutral and fair participant in any conversation of Christianity and is therefore a totally unreliable source for information in a biography. Reading the notes on this article almost makes me ashamed to be a part of the body of Christ. It seems that the body is filled with nothing more than quoters of men and haughty, sectarian, haters of the brethren. I am going to do some research and find out what is necessary to make this article credible and balanced. It's amazing how believers proudly spout their hatred for various Christians with whom they disagree on public cyberspace. No wonder the world thinks we're all idiots. If you disagree with someone you don't have to be disagreeable and you certainly don't have to regurgitate it before unbelievers. (Aren't they confused enough already?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederickj3 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FredrickJ3, I understand and agree with your change. Your change should keep this from becoming a gossip column. I asked for a reference since someone had added the quote, when I should have been asking if the quote was needed. Was that agreeable enough?Spauldio (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish???

Being familiar with Copeland's ministry over the years, I know Kenneth has often mentioned being part-Cherokee on his mother's side. I have never heard of him having any known Jewish ethnicity. Can someone clear this up? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Copeland Ministries = Not a WP:RS for the claims cited

There are many claims about outreach and donations in the article, which are all sourced to podcasts from the Kenneth Copeland Ministries. This is not acceptable. All claims should be from WP:RS. Citing an organization for information on itself must be done with care. Especialy, considering Copeland's history, ie his jet.

Claims, such as, giving free material out and donations should be cited from published reliable third-party sources. It is the same reason why the Trinity Foundation's claims are cited in the article. If millions of dollars are donations have been given out there would be third-party mention of it. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Airport Link?

I recently stumbled across this link from another site. Should this be included in the article text or at least as a related link? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image?

This is a free image we can use, but is it him? If so, please upload to Commons. --Magnus Manske (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong guy. Thanks for trying. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I believe that this entire article needs to be re-written. It has criticism sprayed all over the article. Why not create one section called criticism and put all of it under this title and leave the other parts of the article to say something informative about him. One glance at this article can tell you that his detractors have contributed more than people who have knowledge about this person. The entire article seems to have been written with an agenda to malign rather than to inform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.164.2 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION. See also WP:DUE (it is entirely likely that the reason that most of the information is negative is that most prominent sources discuss him mainly in negative contexts). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'm proposing that Gloria Copeland be merged here, on the basis that none of the cited sources mention Gloria except in the context of discussing her husband. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested image

I've noticed that there's been an image requested banner so I uploaded a screenshot of him on his program. I hope I've uploaded the file to Wikipedia correctly.--NJM2010 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Minority Staff Review"

A "Minority Staff Review" is not issued by the Finance Committee of the Unites States Senate -- it is explicitly the opinion of the staff of the Minority contingent of that committee. As such it would have no official status (unless later adopted by the committee itself). It therefore (i) should not be misrepresented as representing the committee as a whole & (ii) should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


The term "Prosperity Gospel" is not an objective description but commentary and interpretation. It suggests that what Copeland preaches is "another gospel", rather than a "message" that is internal to the general gospel. The word "message" is actually adequate in either case. Commentary language has no place in this initial section of the article designed to merely offer a general profile of the subject of that article.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kenneth Copeland/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Rating== I gave this article a Stub rating. It had no rating and I figured we should start with Stub, since it doesn't appear to qualify for Start, even if it is rated such under its Christian bio rating. Feel free to change it if you disagree, or even better, if you add more to it. :) Fanra 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenneth_Copeland/Archive_1&oldid=1136871282"