Talk:Todd Bentley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tattoos

I wonder what Todd says about getting his tattoos in the last few years. Good start on the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.81.133 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why one would remove a reference to the time frame in which he received his tattoos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.144 (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, first of all, because it was unsourced. That's a huge requirement for any information on biographies of living persons. Secondly, because it doesn't add any overt information about the subject. Another huge requirement on Bio:LP is that all information in an article must inform, in a concrete way, the profile of the subject. Editors are encouraged to pare away any and all information that isn't truly required to give a robust but neutral profile. I'm not sure what it matters when the subject got his tattoos. In fact, since he converted at around the same age that it is legal to get tattoos - the information can be be inferred by most readers.The question would probably be better asked "Why would we add a reference to the timeline he got his tattoos?" EBY3221 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I do believe that the tattoos should be ellaborated on in his bio page since the tattoos seem to be such a topic. I'm looking for the source in which he stated that "God told him to relax and be himself" when he wanted to get them. They are a part of him, and ultimately, a frequented topic in his life. Perhaps someone could list the tatoos that he does have or at least make a reference to them in a greater detail. Perhaps later I will investigate and make an update. Hopefully it will pass the test of acceptable bio material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.140.42 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Added Picture

This picture added by me in the article is a public domain image of Todd for uses in news articles and any sorce, its public domain status is clearly visable. I have other picture of Todd taken by myself if anyone challanges me on the use of this picture. 76.179.164.79 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You've released it for use? EBY3221 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I added this section because the article has a narrow chirstian bias and does not address the parts of his minisrty is in question. i am working on the ref list. please discuss before editing or making any serious changes.--Dizor (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Doing an overhaul of the beginning, using credible sources (current ones may not meet standards) EBY3221 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a biography. I didn't edit the controversy.

He's a phoney and the Lord showed me this!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.135.226 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 

activities

I removed lines that seem to advertise for his ministry. they seemed to have no relevance to this article. items like his podcast website.--Dizor (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

weasel words

See Wiki guidelines - "some" evangelists say... "these" blah blah. Contrary to Wiki standards.

Yes, I noticed the weasel wording, and have moved it to the talk page here until someone can find a reliable source.

Some evangelical leaders are wary of Bentley's minisrty stating that we are warned explicitly in the Christan Bible that in the Last Days "...there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." These evangelical leaders identify his ministry to this passage.

— SimonEast (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.revivalschool.com/ Andrew Strom would be one of the Evangelical leaders, other names are not specifically mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.97.115 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.newchristian.org.uk/lakeland.html which sets out a cautionary warning as to whether the "impartation" or "fire" Todd Bentley transmits - through touch - is a genuine Holy Spirit activity. 77.98.138.56 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Controversial views section is useless and unballanced. Tag added Micov 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Have overhauled article. Any thoughts on its current state of neutrality?EBY3221 07:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The information concerning "Emma" the angel and Todd Bentley's visions should be reinstated. These items are notable and well documented, and without them this page presents a sanitized, whitewashed view of Todd Bentley and his ministry. Z9z9z9z9 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I may agree on the notability, I couldn't find that documentation and Bio: Living Persons states that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, but all I could find were discussions from personal websites, forum comments, and some from Bentley's self-published quotes. The reputable sources like ABC News, MSNBC, and even the article in CBN did not mention Emma. EBY3221 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Controversial views section is far from useless and unbalanced. What is unbalanced is when you take DIRECT quotes of what Todd Bentley has said, and remove them, because you don't want him to slander himself by what he says. No wonder the neutrality of this article is disputed. It amazes me that a person can claim to be a servant of Christ, and do this in good conscience. It truly is baffling. Where is the humility in this? No, it is self servant, and detrimental to the body of Christ. I agree with the whitewashed paragraph above. Also, Todd Bentley removes and changes quotes from his website that come into question. This is NOT transparency, this is DECEPTION. So, when discussing controversial topics about ministers, it should not be a "requirement" that you have a source tied directly to the minister's site, because they may have removed it. But, there still should be a source. One example is when on my blog, I showed how Todd teaches that you can purchase the anointing. It baffled me how quickly my links DIRECTLY to his own site became useless for backing up my claims. Thankfully, another fellow had downloaded Todd's entire site. Trenta (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything that could be verified. The spirit of the Wiki B:LP policy is always to err on the side of what can be cited - preferably by several reliable sources. An encyclopedia is not a magazine article or interview that seeks to put original research or revelation on the page; nor is intended to reveal what is "true" over what can be objectively reported. It is not a tool with which bias can be given the gloss of respectability. Whatever my personal belief on what Bentley may or may not say or profess - it is what I could cite that had to remain. EBY3221 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And with a minimal amount of research, a dozen sources could be found for said content. 161.184.168.147 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If so, please, be bold! This article belongs to no one, and would benefit from the good work of other editors.EBY3221 (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Micov - I've cleaned up some of your adds. The use of the price of the programs without context, based on information taken from the article's own site, isn't neutral and I'm fairly sure crosses the line in terms of a bio:LP. I've left what I could, I understand your concern that the spectrum of the topic's controversies be represented in this article. Unfortunately, much of it isn't yet reflected in noted media sources and original research - the kind of thing that turns this more into an expose than an encyclopedia article - is strictly not allowed. You may want to clean up your cites a little, there's an app in Wiki that makes it easy. Good luck EBY3221 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I keep trying to type out a long answer to you, but for some reason i'm having technical errors. Basicly, I see how my edits looked more like an expose, rather then a ballanced encyclopedia article. I'm a former christan, and one of the most clear things the bible states is that "freely you get, freely you give." Many christans are horrfied when they see him charging for the 'annoting' or 'impartation'. Now let me give you a personal bias. I try extremely hard to keep this out of my editing. In my personal views, and what i've experience, [this is pretty origional reserch] there's no controversies surrounding his 'school' where he 'teaches healing'. Its rejected flat out rejectedin an extremely large group of people. Most of the people that trust this todd fellow dont realise what he's doing. [/Personal Bias] Now in the article, I tried to make known the large price he and his ministry is charging for the 'impartation.' He'll often say, [as I watch this 'revival' frequently] "People come, and say, 'give me double annointing, double imparation' and I say, 'did you give double seed[a reference to money]?" -- that, my friend, is again, origional reserch. So what I was trying to do there is to get as much of his personal 'school' operation as I could, with good sources. I couldent come out and say whats obvious, because it is origional reserch. An example of this is, on an article on grass, "Grass is Green". I know that, not because of something I said, but because I see it when I look outside. So truthfully, for me to say "the grass is green" I should find a cite from a science website or a botany website stateing the pigment of grass is green. Its encyclopedic and respectable. Now again, I check the edits I made up next to your and can clearly see that your statments are much more encyclopedic. Your a better editor then me, and I'm hoping I can learn from good editors like you. I believe that when I wrote those lines, they sounded like I was saying in my mind when I wrote them, "If only I can use wikipedia to make other people see the truth about this guy." Of course thats not what I was thinking, but it seems like it. Adding in the cost of the school, and possabily his line about him saying "give double get double" seemed like reasonable encyclopedic content. Leaving this out is allmost like trying to protect what todds doing from getting out to the public. But I completely understand, you're and extremely nice person and you understand the system for biographys of living persons pretty well much better then I do. Thanks. Cindy Flynn (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the way to get neutrality is to ask two authors - one pro-Todd Bentley and one anti-Todd Bentley to restart the article from scratch and co-operate to produce a properly balanced perspective. This article as it stands seems very anti. An oponent of Todd may strictly censor their own broadly negative contributions, but are unlikley to go the extra mile seeking more positive material.Ihavesevenkids (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Finances

Have reverted several adds about Bentley's personal finances which may be potentially libelous and didn't have valid cites. EBY3221 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I accually added a few of those personal finance stats, but someone else re-wrote it to be a little more unballenced. 76.179.164.79 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment Comment

I assessed as start due to a major content area that is lacking. A sound bio of any minister will discuss their denominational affiliation, or if they have none note that and discuss their theology. This is an issue of incompleteness, rather than of a problem with the current content. GRBerry 14:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Added both, or at least made a start at it! EBY3221 (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment Comment

This is extremly bias towards Todd Bentley and not showing a balanced view as the Contriversal Bit is tiny. It does not show his relationship with the Kasas City Prophets nor any validity of the healings that have happened. Deltadom (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I completley agree. I see extreme bias towards Todd here. There are many Unfulfilled religious prophecies that he has made or agreed with. This must be stated, its completely citeable. Also he has made statments about kicking a woman in the face to heal her. And thats not out of context. Frankly, I personally think the bias is horrable. Theres many people, atheist, christan, and non-bias reviewers that do NOT like this guy. Someone besides a believer in Todd please, please edit this. Cindy Flynn (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor added some "kick" material to the article today; but when I raised the section for consideration at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Todd Bentley one of the reviewers noticed that the text was a copyright violation, so I've removed it. They did find [1] as a better (more reliable and less partisan) source to use for that bit. There is also obviously a lot less on that bit in this source. GRBerry 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As a primary tenet of faith, Bentley preaches Biblical Inerrancy; this takes the form of reliability on the Bible as definitive authority in matters of faith.

Can I have a source for this!

--DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the picture for 'apperence' there is a line that says under the thumb of the picture, "Todd bently seen here... note his multiple tattoos." Is this encyclopedic, or not needed? Commented out untill futher information is given. Cindy Flynn (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Private Jet

Why is his (disputed) ownership/charter of a jet pertinent to an encyclopedia article about him? I could make the argument that both of your sources seem to be very personal blogs, but I think the primary point is that use of a jet is a convenience many, many high-profile people use and yet rarely is it mentioned in an encyclopedia article about them. My guess, if I were to make one, is that there is a bias attached to this data that editors want included. EBY3221 (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

He has been quoted to have owned a private jet in a few paragraphs scattered on the internet, such as [2], or [3]... I'm requesting that an editor apart from me look into this. 76.179.164.79 (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting. I've desided to review the wikipedia page on Adolf Hitler for more information editing well. Why read the article on hitler? Because even though he is reguarded as one of the most evil men who ever lived, his article is relitively non-bias, with only a small section that reguards him as a disliked person. Included is his honorable military service to germany, his respected ability to lead, and his plans and ideals. It really gives me a new spin on editing. This could be quiet the learning experience for me. Thank you, EBY3221, for being insperation. Cindy Flynn (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious (A)

I find this line saying that he 'pays special attention to people coming to faith in Jesus' to be biased towards Bentley: if anything, his ministery pays special attention to faith healing, not "salvation". Though otherwise fitting, the line seems untrue, since he doesn't focus on leading people to becoming christians as does Billy Graham in his revivals. I thought about following the instructions for biography and removing poorly sourced or unsourced lines. It would be a fitting line, if "leading people to Jesus" were replaced with "claiming to heal people in Jesus' name." Possible tag was also, "Template:POV-statement." Really, both statements are un-encyclopedic. Cindy Flynn (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Financial Breakthroughs

Wheather its his tatoos, his preaching about divine healing or debt cancellation......the question is ...WHY would others have problem. If one believes in God then cirticism has no place since anything is possible for God. If He is being a blessing to heal people and give them hope and future. Why should we waste time in crude skeptism when we know he is not blowing bombs and carrying out suicide bombing killing innocent people. For God sake leave him alone. Find something better to do. He is not doing any harm to no one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.207.194 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to make a quick note about his frequent claims that people are led though jesus to get, "Financial Braekthough." He has said, [this is original research, as he said it on broadcast] "Right now people are getting financial miracles..." and on other nights he'll say "DEBT CANCELATION, DEBT CANCELATION.... DEBT CANCELATIOIN RIGHT NOW IN JESUS NAME." Statments like this are common. Should it possabily quoted in the controvery section that he prays for such things as debt cancelation, and the "production of money", while choseing not to ask for money from God for himself? [ie: triple the donations supernaturally]. Many people critical of 'the revival' talk about things like this. I'm hoping another editor will edit this article to add new sections. I'm refraining from editing this article do to the extreme bias I have against this man. Cindy Flynn (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

It is easy to google bentley and find articles labeling him a false prophet or false teacher based on many of the wierd things that have escaped his lips and been caught on video. Anyone of you feel like adding this to the controversy section? "Prophesying" of "False prophesying" should be a good section in the conroversies seeing as how its a hotly debated topic. http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/05/todd-bentley-th.html --68.40.15.156 (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please study Wikipedia policies particularly those involving verifiability, reliable sources and no original research before making contributions. Results found through Google searches such as blogs and self-published websites usually don't qualify as reliable sources and generally are not suitable as citations to support Wikipedia contributions. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to threaten to block me like you did on my talk page. Sheesh. The info I added included reputable watchdog reports, direct quotes from Bentley and video of bentley saying those things. It's part of the controversy and is quite notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.15.156 (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

then you can supply reliable 3rd party sources to that effect. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I will supply the same calliber of 3rd party sources as the rest of the article uses. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK after reviewing the Wiki guidelines for reliable sources it seems like many of the sources I am using are. Experts in the field, respected well-known teachers, educated pastors. The writings of these people fit the reliable sources guidelines and I will proceed to re-ad the information using them as references. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ONLY if they are published in reliable independent 3rd party sources that have a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking, if they don't have that, they will be removed. Blogs and self-published websites don't cut it for sources on articles about living people. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So why the links to videos of Todd claiming he kicked a woman in the face removed? I mean it doesn't get more fact-checking and verifiable than watching the guy say it. Why are you cleaning up his mess? --68.40.15.156 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bentley is a controversial figure who inspires strong feelings and many POV edits. However, the removal of these edits or re-stating of them into neutral information should never be construed as personal bias. Wiki policy on Biographies of living persons (BLPs) is that they MUST be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".EBY3221 (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I can respect that, thanks for explaining. But now no where in the article does it say he kicked a woman in the face which is pretty important information in my mind. I dunnot how you can make it fit NPOV.. but kicking an elderly woman seem pertinent. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section with all real controversy conveniently removed

Ok someone help me out. I've got a list of controversies that are easy to read up on but I'm not sure how to go about documenting them or protecting the section from Bentley defenders once it's up. Could somone please help compile this in an apporpiate and honest manner? Thanks.. Top be added:

1. Kicking a woman in the face: http://www.christianresearchservice.com/ToddBentley2.htm There's a million and one watchdog organizations that have documented this. Which ones would be suitable for adding as a ref? Also, this should NOT be under the title faith healing because faith healing normally does not involve kicking women in the face.

2. Portals into heaven: http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain45.htm Many people are finding his "portal" theology unbiblical. That's a controversy in and of itself. Not as highly documented as the boot to the face but video is available of him saying it as are expert watchdog websights. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

both of those seems to be self-published websites and don't cut it for the purposes of our reliable sources policies - you need to be finding newspapers, magazines etc - things that have a reputation for fact-checking. Partisan religious sides just don't cut it. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another good one for the portals http://www.patholliday.com/christograms/from_scribd/recently_uploaded/Todd-Bentley-Demonic-Portals-to-Third-Heavens.pdf . And in regards to self-publishing.. it's allowed under wiki guidelines. I just read it. These particulars are not covered by mainstream media. But notble, realiable experts such as Rev. Mike Oppenheimer at Let us reason or Dr.Pat Holiday (listed right above) are all educated and respected in the field. With that in mind I'm going to rewrite the portal section. You may be right about the first ref though. Still need to find notable sources for the Kicking a woman in the face section.. what about Todd Bentley himself talking about it? Would that work? Thanks. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And in regards to self-publishing.. it's allowed under wiki guidelines. WRONG - it is allowed for non-contentious statements about the subject itself - you cannot use self-published resources to make contentious statements about something other than the subject itself, especially a living figure. Let me give you an example:

Example 1: Self published resource by Jim-bob says Jim-bob likes ice-cream. Maybe OK.

Example 2: Self published resource by Jim-Bob says that Roger has a criminal record. NO, NEVER, NOPE.

The use of self-published sources to make contentious remarks about living figures will be removed on sight. We do not and will not mess around with our duty to living figures. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO chance that this is going to be used as a source. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What about links to Todd preaching that he kicked a woman in the face? I mean HIS OWN WORDS. Seriously. You're doing well at defending the fella but he's not making your job very easy. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of him, don't care who he is or what he's done - I just don't give a damn - the ONLY concern I have is that our sources are reliable according to our guidelines and that wikipedia is protected from legal action due to the use of pisspoor sourcing. That's the start and end of my interest in this article and this living figure. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this conversation. My contention with this article is that Bently is quoted frequently but only favorably. Not for lack of unfavorable quotes. On his own webpage and videos he preaches quite controversial things.. (see the "kicking face" video). How do I go about using his own quotes and videos as a resource for controversy? --68.40.15.156 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "conveniently removed" because let me tell you, rewriting vandalism is not a convenient task; and that it was such non-neutral controversial adds are considered. I have removed and pared down many of the Bentley quotes that may seem to bend too far on making the subject seem favorably written and made sure that all verifiable controversy from your edits was folded in. That done - please read the Bio:LP link I've left for you in several places before making more changes - because there can NOT be section headings like "Kicking Woman in the Face" EBY3221 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I actually like how you slipped it in. It looks nice. Still though the information and citations from "trips to heaven" section need to be reworked in. Will you fix that as well. I don't think you want me to do it. :) --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

About Trips to Heaven. A couple of things, Encyclopedias don't usually refer to the source pieces beyond the cites - just the material in them, if you follow. For example, not "NBC news reported that this guy is a closet licorice eater" - instead, "His consumption of licorice is a private matter." Another point - words like "Claims to" give the impression of bias - See Weasel_words for a much better explanation. That's two of the problems with your section "trips to heaven". It would be better to include these issues as examples of theological controversy with their cites, which I will do if you have no objection. EBY3221 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Right on please do. I just request that you keep the sourced "Paul/Hebrews" information as part of the article somehow. It's demonstrates a significant doctrinal highlight. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken reference

There is a broken reference, can someone have a go at fixing it? --Allemandtando (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Will this source work for the article?

OK.. I'm gonna list sources that seem to be reliable not self-published sources. Just give me a yes or no.. :) On the subject of "portals"

http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/church_issues/todd_bentley_story_earth_heaven.htm

http://www.newdayinternational.org/newsletters/document/248-Lakeland-Florida-Outpouring-with-Todd-Bentley

http://www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Act=read&status=teaching&Id=243&pid=954&bid=955 <-- todds sight

Thanks for feedback --68.40.15.156 (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Found it. Todd's own words from his websight, "One time I was in a meeting that was just dead. So I asked God how He wanted to bring a breakthrough. He showed me an older lady right in front of the platform worshipping Jesus and the Lord said to kick her in the face!"

http://www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Act=read&status=teaching&Id=210&pid=954 This site has been used as a ref over and over in this article allready so it shouldn't be a problem right? --68.40.15.156 (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

http://tampabay.com/news/religion/article651191.ece W00t. St.Petersburg Times ran an article on kickface. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.goodnewsfl.org/local.asp?page=bc/0608/front/todd.asp one more paper for the kick face incident --68.40.15.156 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The tampa bay one is fine. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks for replying. What about the goodnews one? Seems like a legit publication. Also direct quotes from Todd's own site? --68.40.15.156 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I read up on Goodnews Florida, apparantly its a local newspaper aimed at the Christian community of several cities in south florida. The online portion mirrors it's contents. It's all verifiable information in the articles, none of the content they report on is libalous anyhow as it's all still currently on Todd Bentley's own webpage. Still the newspaper is useful for us in providing proof, not that the incidents happened but that the incidents are controversial in thier communities. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed with your diligence in finding this information, 68.40.15.156. I'm no expert on the BLP guidelines (I've read them many times, but some parts confuse me I still make mistakes sometimes), but your new sources look great to me. I hope it works out, but either way I thank you for your hard work. You've done a great job of integrating content that many people feel is important while still doing your best to work appropriately and with civility within Wikipedia guidelines. We'd see a lot less warring and other nonsense around here (meaning Wikipedia in general, not specifically this article) if more people would do the same. - edi (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Someone recently removed all the changes without reading the talk. If you see any blanket reversions please feel fre to help keep well cited information up.--68.40.15.156 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on it, believe me, and I think between the material that you're offering and EBY3221's hard work to keep everything in line with WP:BLP, everything's moving along just fine at the moment. Naturally I'll jump in and help if I feel it's warranted, but for now I'm pleased with all that you both are doing (including remaining civil) to improve a sensitive and difficult article. Thanks. - edi (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, EBYs doing a great job. Eby and I both assumed the other to be vandals at first I think, but I can see he is trying to incorperate the material professionally as possible and not remove it. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

New Question.. if Todd is interviewed on a TV show is that interview citable?

"In one interview with Patricia King of the TV show Extreme Prophetic, he claimed to have ascended into heaven with prophetic minister Bob Jones after simply closing their eyes at a noisy restaurant. In another instance, he said he visited the cabin where Paul lives in heaven -- and Paul told him that he and Abraham co-wrote the Book of Hebrews. " taken from: www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/080703ministry.html Thanks for response. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I quoted the newspaper and I provided a link to the tv networks listing of downloadable interviews where it can be found. Please help clean it up if it needs to be further wikified. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Freshfire.ca and ignitedchurch.com as sources

Hey all I've notice a complete removal of the entire controversy section again. Please see the above discussion on sources before removing the sections again. Also, freshfire and ignitedchurch are webpages of bentley's own organization with direct links avaiable to quote his sermons. Is it appropriate to cite this coupled with the Florida newspapers' reports of controversy over it? Thanks --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone just removed "kicked in face" section despite newspaper source

I believe the question is that the wording is POV? I'm not sure how Woman kicked in face is pov especially when the preacher says he did it and the newspaper reported it as such. Help me understand. It may sound crazy to you but it's what the paper and preacher have reported. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget it.. Eby included the kickface information in a tasteful way. Thanks mate. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems - EBY3221 (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All references to his Tattoos has been lowered and it is a major part of information, it is quite a major thing to actually get tatoo's whilst you are a pastor and completely unbiblical --DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you find an objective, verifiable, and noted source that says that a Charismatic Christian Evangelist who is not ordained by a specific religion should not get tattoos once they are converted? I couldn't. However, there was ample cites that the choices is controversial - so that is in the article, cited. EBY3221 (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Would the bible count! As a charasmatic christian he has got to live by the bible

His realationship with William Braham and the Kansas city Prophets is also something major that is not quoted on his website

"Revivalist Todd Bentley . .... Bentley replied that those familiar with the life of William Branham would" www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Act=read&status=revival&Id=132&pid=954&bid=923

--DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bible wouldn't work. It is NOT an Encyclopedia's place to MAKE any judgments about which passages of what interpretation that Bentley should adhere to in his position - merely to encapsulate, neutrally, the controversies as reported by objective, verifiable sources - And tattoos as counter to the expectation of evangelists IS mentioned and cited, your or my opinions of Leviticus notwithstanding.

Kansas city Prophets are not mentioned that I can find in any of the notable cites (what, 20+ now?) that we've found. An encyclopedia article is not a place for original research, or for quoting from biased sources. This article has already been so beefed up by the controversies to be dangerously teetering into non-neutrality, especially, frankly, for a subject that wouldn't have rated an entry even 6 months ago. That, of course, is just my opinion but as one of the few, it seems, with no skin in this game except a desire to get this article to Good status - I hope it has some merit. EBY3221 (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything to do with the Kansas City Prophets and William Branham is a major bit of information as Todd Bentley see's him as his mentor! --DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While that may or may not be true - it can't be included without a reliable, objective 3rd party cite, and preferably a couple of them, since this seems to be controversial (I wouldn't know). Mentors, influences can be important in a Biol:LP BUT they can also be used to taint, tarnish, or alternatively uplift the view of the person. For example, Plato can not be reasonably portrayed without mentioning Socrates - this connection is the focus of innumerable essays and articles. On the other hand, many people wishing to slander a certain dictator often attempted to put his study of Hitler into his biography because it happened to be true in a minor way but more impactfully would give a negative slant to that dictator's character. That? Is not acceptable.

As many of us have explained, Deltadom, this is NOT an Expose. This is an encyclopedia. It is about reading the available sources, and compiling a view based on those -not walking in the door trying to prove a pre-determined opinion. EBY3221 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven studied under Hadyn so Hadyn's Music influenced Bethoven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven I am not trying to determine a pre-determined opinion, If he says personally in his site about the influence of William Branham Source(www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Act=read&status=revival&Id=132&pid=954&bid=923) An encyclopedic article has to take everything into consideration, else it would be not an encyclopedic it has to take in the meat aswell as the milk. The bad with the good. We need to know everything about him to gain a proper perspective. He has lived 30 odd years and the information is scarce. Plato [4] In the article about Plato [5] Socrates is given a section but in this article there is not even a link to the Kansas City Prophets or Bob Jones or things that have influenced Todd Bentley, nothing about his Mum or Dad or whether he has brothers or sisters. At this point we need all the information we can gather. [6] [7] [8]

not walking in the door trying to prove a pre-determined opinion.

Whether you like it or not you are both coming with a pre-determined opinion just because I am challenging your pre-determined opinion you find it reproachful! Is Truth not our commen goal!

While that may or may not be true - it can't be included without a reliable, objective 3rd party cite, and preferably a couple of them, since this seems to be controversial (I wouldn't know). Mentors, influences can be important in a Biol:LP BUT they can also be used to taint, tarnish, or alternatively uplift the view of the person. For example, Plato can not be reasonably portrayed without mentioning Socrates - this connection is the focus of innumerable essays and articles. On the other hand, many people wishing to slander a certain dictator often attempted to put his study of Hitler into his biography because it happened to be true in a minor way but more impactfully would give a negative slant to that dictator's character. That? Is not acceptable.

If I whitewashed Hitlers site and said that he was a really nice guy! The problem is every event has an effect on our lives whether good or bad and would be impactful in our lives. A tiny piece of Leaven affects the bread dough to make an ordinary piece of dough puff up, so every tiny detail is important! even if negative. [9] We are not trying to censor information! We are standing up for Truth, what is really going on here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltadom (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and I actually think that Hitler is actually an excellent example of a controversial subject which editors strive to keep neutral.

You have made a fantastic point: "He has lived 30 odd years and the information is scarce." What does that tell you? It tells me that this person is not that notable. In fact, if not for a single event - Lakeland Revival - this article would not survive a call for deletion.

At the end of the day, an Encyclopedia is like a library. It holds the words and thoughts of others and champions not truth but information. Bentley's family has done nothing to warrant their privacy being breached, and Bentley's own site is absolutely a biased source. As notable information becomes reported in the recognized press, it gets assimilated here. We can't make it happen any faster - we are not reporters, after all. Best, EBY3221 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Source I stumbled on mention of

I stumbled across a mention that "In September 2002 Charisma featured a seven-page article about Bentley’s amazing conversion from drug addiction." (This is the Charisma magazine from which a January 2003 article is already used as a source.) It ought to be available online, should someone wish to go find it. GRBerry 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm.

I've been staying away from this article, but, dont you realise, when you say, "We can't cite that, its bias!" it only works for a few things. Let me say that another way, hes controversial, because he's controversial. I see if we had an atheist saying, "Faith healing is such bologna! [...] This guys so scriewed up he kicks old ladys in the face!!" or a muslem saying, "Allah is the true god! This one who preaches jesus the god of infidels kicks people in the face!" I would not cite anything from those, but the controversy is coming from HIS OWN FOLLOWERS and other people in the same religion. Fact is, a very few people "like" ie: respect, admire, Bentley. And no cases of healing have ever been documented.
No personal attack here, not pointed at anyone at all.

- So maybe all this doesn't make sense to you. Point is: If we've got a video of todd saying 'odd' things, why cant that be recorded as a reliable source? I mean. I understand, but jeeze. What's more reliable? A news program, or the VIDEO of him SAYING IT HIMSELF. WE can't IGNORE things he has said just because of the video format. Sure some of the blogs may be bias, but the blogs have a good reason! They link videos showing Todd saying this.

• I've found two reasons:
  • Video could be "edited" or doctored up.
  • Could be out of context.

Well I've found sources on his website [transcripts of her sermons] that clearly state that this is exactly what he said, and shows the context! While HIS website MAY be biased, surely it can be used to prove facts.

 CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 06:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cindy, you've asked a really good question - similar to the one asked above. The simple answer? Because Wikipedia Policy says so. Transcripts (like those of sermons) and YouTube (or other video) is considered a primary source and "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources". If you read that policy, it explains this much better than I.

Because Bentley is relatively unknown and arguably known for one event, those policies state that sourcing is even MORE important; This is especially true about controversial claims. Recently someone asked why Wikipedia can not use YouTube (already covered) and the source's OWN website to demonstrate a relationship with a controversial group. That is addressed in understanding the policy on when a source's OWN website can - can not be used.

Hope all this helps! EBY3221 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Todd has taken a leave & GodTV has quit airing the revival on television...

I don't know how this works so I'll just give it to someone here to deal with.

http://www.god.tv/eblast08-07-11-todd

It was noted at ABC that his absence started the day after their Nightline exposé.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/story?id=5338963&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertigocreative (talk • contribs) 05:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresh Fire announced the Todd and his wife are now separated. It's on the front page of their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.194.71 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I want to make a humble somewhat egotistical suggestion. I'm planning on doing a total rewrite of Lakeland revival (a related article). Before I can do that, I have to know what the reliable sources on the topic are. So I've created and started using Talk:Lakeland revival#Reliable Sources (and subsections) to identify and sort by rough POV the reliable sources. Some are only debatably reliable, so are being listed with a comment suggesting why they may be reliable. (It is on the talk page so that others can provide input even before I start thinking about what content to include and/or cite to a given source.)

I think it might be helpful for this article to also develop a list of reliable sources, and have an editor or three focus on "what sources can we use". Once you have a list of agreed reliable sources, it will be a lot easier to figure out what the article should say. Is it worth someone doing that here? GRBerry 20:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've started cleaning it up too. The Nightline piece is a good WP:RS for his background and claimed "healing." We66er (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Any talk of Lakeland revival should go there, but I admit, GRBerry, to avoiding it. I know its associated to this subject, but I really am only interested in BLP's these days. Now that the subject is on hiatus, I have to clean this article up - way too much about controversy, and you know I still doubt that notability is met, but I digress. I'd be happy to help with references.

Faith Healing

We66er? Putting quotes around revival and faith healing imply a negative bias. Oh, and don't removed the theology summation of an evangelists's bio, please.

No way I'm tackling any more of this tonight, but if anyone has a good idea on how to NEUTRALLY get rid of the 'controversy' section - please let me know. I'm getting more and more how the call-out itself is unnecessary and biased. EBY3221 (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the edits more carefully before reverting someone's hard work. I didn't remove the "theology" section! I moved it under the "ministry" section so all the religious claims go together. If its not there, it makes for a rough read

On the other hand, do not remove the nightline report or other press accounts.

We will put "healing" into quotes until it can be WP:V with WP:RS. Until then it is a unsubstantiated claim by Bentley. We66er (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so Bentley's supposed angel vision gets a mention and his lack of education/ordaination doesn't. The whole thing needs a rewrite. Have fun working it out. I'm done with this article. We66er (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your source didn't go anywhere it just said "abc news search". If you can provide a link to a source, then it can go in. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It worked fine on my screen. (The ref name had the same ref name (abc news search) as the one in the controversy section, which was http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/story?id=5338963&page=1 . We66er (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, The Nightline report is cited, check the lead. Maybe Theology is better served by being a section of Ministry, as it sort of is with Billy Graham. However, this subject is only notable for religious activities, so lumping them together would make a big long essay. That's a format call, one that may be best served in a debate on this page.

Faith Healing IS a recognized activity: in Wikipedia as its own article (no quote marks) and in many other articles. Whether it is a successful activity, as done by Bentley, is part of the controversy that surrounds this particular subject but putting it in quotes makes a judgment implication that is not appropriate. My 2 cents, anyway.

I did look carefully at the changes you made, and at first tried re-working some of edits before giving up and reverting and then adding back in some of your hard work. Like when StormCommander took out a section that spoke of Bentley's relationship with the AOG church, SC killed one of the named cites that screwed several following refs. I didn't agree with the edit, necessarily - or the screwing of the cite. But I fixed the cite and let the rest stand because at the end of the day - I don't own this article and the edits didn't change the neutrality one way or the other. Same with Allemantando - outside the neutrality stuff that editor does, I rarely agree with the changes, but... Just disagreeing isn't grounds for reverting.

Your edits slanted this article overall wayyyy to the negative. You weren't the first to do it, you won't be the last. And that? WILL be reverted. EBY3221 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, most of the sources are negative about him. That's what happens when you claim you can heal people without offering evidence at the same time collecting tens of thousands of dollars. I don't know what you mean by "overall wayyyy to the negative" but everything was sourced to WP:RS, which apparently at the bottom somone believed one of them (Baptist Press) was self-published. It shows my sourcing wasn't look at with care. Can you be specific with your objections? We66er (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, portraying faith healing as being real is in violation of Wikipedia:UNDUE: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view." Faith healing is not accepted as a reality for medical professions. On the contrary, only people like Bentley and Benny Hinn claim its real and fail to provide evidence. So until it becomes proven, it must be WP:ATT (eg "Bentley claims... healing..."). Unless you have WP:RS on the validity of faith healing it MUST BE DISCUSSED ACCORDING TO POLICY: "... though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant" (Wikipedia:UNDUE). Being WP:NPOV, does not mean omitting, for example, the Nightline report which said there was no independent proof of healing.

Lastly, the Nightline report isn't cited, either in the lead or elsewhere. For example, the source in the lead is the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. You seem highly confused. If I am wrong what footnote are you referring to? (Footnote #26, at the very bottom, is not about the nightline report, but on Bentley taking a hiatus.) We66er (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What's you take on the Dembski stuff? I was... wait a minute.. while checking the article to see if he was an expert, I came across this. That is a straight forward attempt to WP:COATRACK and I will remove it from there.

You are quite wrong about the prominence given to faith healing. Almost every Christian, and probably many adherents of other religions, believes that faith healing sometimes works. This is not a fringe or minority view in any way shape or fashion. Those who believe in it just normally adopt the position that it is entirely compatible with seeking medical treatment via other means. Even Christian Scientists, who by preference use faith healing (and in Massachusetts health insurance by law must cover their practices), are apparently allowed by their church to use traditional medicine. What is fringe are those who believe in only using fringe healing, which as far as I can tell, is not relevant to this article. GRBerry 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So "many" Christians believe it (I'd like a source on that), the majority of people in the world are not Christians. That's an aside, however. Faith healing has not been proven effective in any controlled study. As such medical professions, do not recommend it. While Christians might have "faith" in God and "healing," that says nothing about either's provablity. And without proof or WP:RS of its existence from medical profession it must be given the weight its due: without proof. We66er (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(Randomly Restarting Indent)

I'm just going to agree with GRBerry on this. Faith Healing, whatever my personal opinion, is an accepted practice. Implying it isn't adds bias, as I said.

We66er, you're right that the Nightline article got moved about, and I'll go back and fix that. but YES #26 absolutely does link to it. Thanks.

And you're right that this article is in an NPOV war - keeping it neutral is almost impossible. That doesn't mean we give up on it. Just that we try harder. When in doubt, Hitler ain't a bad example of how it can be done. |EBY| (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me clear some confusion. Yes, faith healing is practiced by various religious, including Christianity. However, my concern was on the veracity of evidence. Many people praying does not make praying effective.[10] The article needs to make clear that the faith healing in general is not a medical alternative and has no evidence to support it. As it read, it implies that healing occurs, which is simply false. We66er (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article have to make that clear? Why is Bentley's article an appropriate place for Wikipedia to make that stand? The Revival did/does feature it - that is well cited. Whether or not successfully, that is part of the controversy. And as for the practice itself - the term is Wikilinked to the article on Faith Healing, which hopefully gives the reader the information they need to make up their own mind. |EBY| (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I cite WP:UNDUE: the belief that faith healing works is not backed by science. As such, it must be presented that way. A quick mention of that is relevant when discussing supposed healings, which are an important part of his ministry is called Florida Healing Outpouring. We66er (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong. Faith healing is not a scientific belief; that it is not backed by science is not even relevant to this article. Attempting to put any scientific criticism of faith healing into this article would be violating WP:UNDUE. The due weight for that criticism in this article is zero - no text - no words - nothing.

What is relevant to this article is the degree to which various claims tightly associated with this preacher were or were not verified after investigation - and where the verification process failed. The only reliable sources I've seen on the matter generally describe the process of verification as failing (the case that got furthest because the healed individual's doctor wouldn't return the reporters phone calls before the reporter's deadline), though I think there may be one (but I'm remembering it as a non-reliable source) that described a particular individual who had been claimed to be healed and was dead shortly thereafter. GRBerry 14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Healing (to be healed) is empirically testable by definition. That people have tried to heal (which is testable if someone is healed or not) by faith and it has never been confirmed is worthy of mention in the article. If what Bentley claims is true then that changes EVERYTHING we know about medicine and science. We could shut down hospitals and have Bentley walk through chilren's cancer wards. Since that is not the case, the medical/scientific consensus on Bentley career ("healing") should be mentioned.

Scientists have look into faith healing and its never been confirmed. That is fact and relevant to an article about a faith healer. Its even more relevant when someone has a criminal background and other raise issues about his finances. We66er (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

New to this - sorry if I mess up the format etc. I am surprised that faith healing is rejected simply beacuse science can't prove it. Science is the wrong tool for the job. To be scientific, it has to be repeatable, but since God is an individual rather than a cosmic principle, he doesn't always do things the same way. Plus, doctors run a mile when asked to make pro-faith healing statements, so there is social pollution of the 'scientific' results. It is therefore disingenious (spelling?) to hide behind science when opposing faith healing. The fact is, some people do experience it. My colleague showed me before and after MRI scans and accompanying doctor's letters - the earlier dated one said he had asbestosis and on that basis he had succesfully sued his former employer and was waiting for the cheque. The later dated one stated he had no asbestosis, and on the basis of this he had waived the compensation payment. Between the two scans he had been to a Christian faith healing meeting [not one of Todd Bentley's] and been healed suddenly, miracluously and permanently in the aisle before he even reached the front. It's anecdotal, but its still 100% true. How much more proof is needed to satisfy wikipedia, or do they not really want to know?Ihavesevenkids (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Science and investigation CAN be used to verify faith healings. For instance. After a healing event has occurred, independent investigators can look at the previous medical records of those healed, and compare with current medical diagnosis to verify that a faith healing event has in fact occurred. That being the case, Todd Bentley has not been able to provide one verifiable case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.139.95 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• As an aside, GRBerry, Christian Scientists do not practice "Faith Healing", and in fact, the article you linked to as support for your beliefs about faith healing actually says that they don't. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 07:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

References

In regards to it's use here - I would say the Dembski stuff is more useful in the Lakeland revival article and maybe a line here - because unless I'm a mistaken he's not a notable theologian is he and it's presence would be WP:UNDUE based upon an unfounded appeal to authority - thoughts? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't even noticed that with Dembski. Good catch. Frankly, I think that since this subject (Bentley) is truly only notable for Lakeland, that this article should have gone over there in the first place (and maybe should still be merged?).

That said, I agree that the Lakeland parent article is absolutely the right for the success/failures of whatever happened during the revival. Especially since this activity is continuing since Bentley stepped off - but as for Dembski's specific accounting? I'm torn - as an Intelligent Design philosopher, this theological opinions weigh heavier than most on the issue, but this specific encounter has only been reported in a religious blog. Tough call, really. |EBY| (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it fail under "self-published sources can only be used as sources about themselves and not for contentious claims about other subjects or especially living figures" (or however WP:SELFPUB is currently worded) --Allemandtando (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dembski is a theologian and is a professor at one of the most famous Baptist seminaries. Moreover, Baptist Press is not a "self-published" source; its the news service for the Southern Baptist Convention.[11] You seem to be revert happy without even taking the time to look at the sources. Dembski criticizes Bentley's faith healing and message, specifically lack of Bible references and teaching. On the same note you removed the Nightline citation where it says Bentley has no college education and isn't even ordained. Seems highly relevant for a pastor's biography. We66er (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at the source it just said "ABC NEWS Search" and didn't lead anywhere - if you've got the actual source (or I just fucked it up - highly likely) stick it back in. You'll have to excuse us if we seem to be a bit trigger happy it's just that every day seems to have about 3 or 4 attempts to slant this BLP. As an atheist, I couldn't give two hoots about this fella, as a wikipedian, sadly my duty is clear. As for the dembski text, let's try and work out wording here - how's that sound? --Allemandtando (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We66er (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Check your source again on ordination... and be specific about where the reference is (which paragraph of which section). The string "ordain" does not appear in the article now, nor does anything I quickly see as a reference to that subject. There is a note at the end about "This piece has been updated with a clarification that was necessary because of an editing error." Maybe the editing error was related. I think if you really look for the truth of this matter, you'll find this particular statement to be false.

Here's Bentley talking about his education, you're right he doesn't mention ordaination. http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5345018 (-3:58). We66er (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

William A. Dembski is indeed a theologian and professor, one who is relatively controversial for unrelated reasons that we don't need to concern ourselves with on this matter. The Baptist Press is indeed a wire service, akin to the Associated Press. My personal preference is to never cite any wire service directly, as they don't apply as many layers of editorial review and judgment as the publications that might or might not use material they want to sell. Instead, find a reliable source publication that actually decided to publish the material. I do think the amount cited to this one source was excessive in the long run - there are other reliable source reactions and reflections that could be used, and a NPOV article will reflect the balance of such viewpoints, not just one or two of them. Again, some of the sourcing listed on Talk:Lakeland revival or used in that article would be helpful for this article and this specific matter. GRBerry 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's the thing. Dembski's recollections of going to see Lakeland Revival/Bentley are published as a FIRST PERSON editorial on the blog of that Baptist newspaper website. That doesn't meet any 3rd-party verification that I've read, and this is a BLP - higher standards, not lower. It should be out.

Dembski himself is a noted theologian, absolutely, but even he referred to this Bentley story as "OFF THE TOPIC" on his own blog. It just doesn't belong on either his article or this one. My two cents. |EBY| (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Many news stories are in the first person, so what? The source is a WP:RS and WP:V, whether you doubt the source (Dembski or the paper) or question the papers editorial staff, it doesn't matter. Its listed as "off-the-topic" on his INTELLIGENT DESIGN blog because its not about INTELLIGENT DESIGN. We66er (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How about it's use in the lakeland article in an agreed manner? --Allemandtando (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good compromise, but the whole controversy section needs a complete rewrite. For example, his angel claim takes up as much space as his faith healing. He is most known in the press as a healer as opposed to the vision so there are better sources on his faith healing. Moreover, his personal finances and criminal past need a mention since that's part of the controversy. His critics have taken the criminal background, disputed healing, personal finances, and uncoventional training to criticize him. That, in sum, is the controversy on the whole, but the article fails to point that out. His early life covers part of it, but it needs to be noted that his critics connect all the issues. We66er (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no - It DOES matter. It is a Primary Source and this is a BIO:LP.

"Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." What Dembski wrote, regardless of the source it was published by, was an FIRST PERSON OPINION PIECE and it was written outside of Dembski's primary area of scholarship; Intelligent Design. He gave his first-person account and opinion that Bentley was not successfully practicing Faith Healing, which is controversial and therefore under additional scrutiny as part of a BLP article.

If someone wants to use it over at the Lakeland Main Article, I wouldn't argue. But BLP's have a much higher bar which must be considered from both ethical and legal standpoints. |EBY| (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

EBY3221, read a little further on what you quoted from WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." Clearly, we should take the word of a theologian, published by a religious press service about a controversial pastor.

Also EBY3221 you seem to be enforcing this selectively. Look at footnote #23 ( http://othellooutlook.com/cgi-bin/outlook/get_story.cgi?story=Story_5&dir=05222008 ). Its primary and about his visit to the revival and does not look like a WP:RS. Look at footnote #18 too: http://www.charlotte.com/345/story/676559.html all it is primary stories without independent verification. We66er (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the rest of the sentence you cut off: "because it is easy to misuse them."

If you disagree with the cites you mentioned, please feel free to Be Bold and delete them. BOTH can be removed and the sentences they refer to will remain, because BOTH are used as secondary cites, and not for the 1st-person story but for the information those articles confirmed: (that Bentley traveled as an evangelist, there was a revival, that it was controversial).

I have come to the conclusion that you and I have entered into a debate that is no longer for the good of the good of the article. I object to biased information being entered into an article based on a first-person account - I think it violates the spirit of NPOV as well as skirts around some legal issues. But I own neither this article nor Wikipedia and, as always, will bow to consensus - whatever that may be. Best, |EBY| (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

EBY3221 added in a local newspaper, uncritically reporting healings here, but here removed, in part, "The report concluded "not a single miracle could be verified." I think ABC News report is a WP:RS and an exhaustive investigation on healings. The local report of unverified healings is not.We66er (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A theologian went to have his son healed. His son wasn't healed. He disagress with Bentley's message and found the service to be more of a show. Why you think that "violates the spirit of NPOV" is a strange reading of WP:NPOV. Its worth quoting NPOV: "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." NPOV does not mean removing sources you think are a little mean to the subject. We66er (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To move this forward, how about this? I will invite comments off members of the BLP board and we hold off adding it until we have some feedback ? --Allemandtando (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be a little premature. Like I said, the whole thing needs a rewrite. It lacks specifics about the controversy: who has criticized him, why, with what evidence... What about finances, his criminal past? The theology section is vague and needs reworked. It would be good to do a rewrite then invite the BLP board since there is really nothing right in it thats controversial. We66er (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I started to do a rewrite on the controversy. I added specifics: Who is criticizing, what the critics concluded, and what the issues are. The article focused too much on his yelling and piercings, etc. and not his failure to support, say, his healing claims. Now, we know who criticizes him and why. The Angel part belongs more with the criticism of his teaching than anything else. But it needs sourced better. WP:NPOV: "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The Nightline article has quotes from people on all sides if anyone wants to expand on all view points. We66er (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Come ON people...

In addition, he has received criticism from other Christians for doctrine differences and even relating his revivals as being akin to Wrestlemania.

Wrestlemania? Real encyclopedic. I don't care who said it. I don't think its belongs. I wont remove it, but i'll let someone else do it. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 04:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states all significant views from WP:RS should be included. The source, from St. Petersburg Times, says " In any case, his style has more in common with Austin 3:16 than its biblical antecedent: It seems borrowed from Wrestlemania." It is a summary of his style according to critics. As he is criticized widely for his showmanship rather than preaching it offers a good introduction to the next part which talks about him yelling and doctrine differences. The fact that you "don't care who said it," doesn't matter. Policy does. If you want to reword it fine. However, not liking some of the criticisms made against him is NOT a reason for removal. It appears that you having spent much time at the revival probably doesn't make you the most neutral editor. All views get a fair expression in the articles, even ones Bentley doesn't like. We66er (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PS CindyAbout, Why is a picture YOU took on Bentley's website? We66er (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Theology... This section is biased in that it includes only affirmative items regarding soteriology. There should be extensive documentation regarding the inclusion of angels and visitations, inclusion of eastern mysticism for informing Christian doctrine, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.138.130.3 (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Add to it then. We66er (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the story behind that is interesting. I'm glad you asked though. I'm a photographer, and I have family in Clearwater, Florida that are extremely religious. I spent a total of two days [that is, 2 full days, 24 hours, not in a row] at the revival. This picture was taken when the revival was first starting. I felt the photograph to be quiet good, and due to privacy laws in the USA, was compelled to get a makeshift Model Release signed by Bentley. This quest fell short as Bentley, being a busy man, left the area. I contacted Bentley's staff about the image and attached a copy of the image so 'they' could see some type of image I took. After research, I discovered that I had one of the only few good "free images" of Bentley. I wanted to try to work out some type of release. They where impressed [I have a copy of the email.] and a person who represents Todd &; Freshfire personally "OK'd" the use of the image, on the condition that it was released under public domain, so there use of the image was not a copyright issue. I have said that if I'm ever questioned, I'd just remove it. Previously, this image has been discussed, removed by me and then reinstalled, after a short discussion. If you still have an issue, please remove the image. It is no problem. Notice the "Image Dispute" template located on this talk page. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I don't see anyone debating the neutrality right now. So if there are no more issues I am going to remove the tag. We66er (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no ongoing debate on anything, I've removed the tag. We66er (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal (again) of pertinent, non-POV, well cited info

Hey guys. It seems that after the lengthy discussion (half page above) and apparant consensus info on the violence has been removed again. I am reintroducing info partly written by EBY, myself and others in the controversy section. Have a look. If the language needs to be further neutralised please do. Thanks! --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your additions are fine and sourced well. We66er (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

--98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Lakeland?

Would this subject be notable enough for an entry here if not for the Lakeland Revival? Just a thought. |EBY| (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a smart thing to do if People are looking for information and it is redirected to the Lakeland Site it may confuse people if they are looking for infomation on Todd Bently not Lakeland

Todd Bentley also went to somewhere in Texas, so if you get some information on that account that would justify having the article

I still think the Information on William Branham is a thing that is majorly missing!

--DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I say no. Lakeland is not a living bio. Also lakeland has more for it that Mr.Bentley who is currently not at lakeland. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And who is william Branham? and why is he important in Todd's bio? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

-Branham isn't mentioned in a single one of the reputable sources we have. |EBY| (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking of putting the POV Poster in place as the lakeland article is far too long! If people want to click on the Lakeland Revivial link they can click the link! as the article is messy and misses major features!

Articles about people notable only for one event Policy shortcuts: WP:ONEEVENT WP:BLP1E

Main article: Wikipedia:Notability (people) Further information: WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO1E, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. [[12]]

--DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no contreversy section so I have put the POV section

It is an extreme bias towards Todd Bentley! --DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of a "contreversy [sic] section" is not a good reason for the POV tag. Please read Wikipedia:Criticism#Evaluations of a topic in its article. Our style guidelines actively discourage the existence of separate controversy/criticism sections, especially ones that put only a single point of view in them - i.e. a "praise section" would be equally inappropriate. Instead, critical material should be integrated within the article.

A legitimate POV concern would be of the form "topic X, covered in reliable sources A, B, C, is given too much/little attention in the article". Do you have any concerns that can be expressed in this form? GRBerry 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias]

This topic that he is causing a stir is reliably covered in [13] I think the decrease in the articles size is a cause for concern!

The Theology section is all quotes from Todd Bentley himself, things about his tatoos is another major issue

--DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

When I removed the controversy section, I made sure that all the information in it was incorporated into the balance of the article - someone else has gone through this and completely scrubbed it since then. As GRBerry rightly assumed, I removed the section heading in line with emerging consensus about BLP articles and their templates. (At the end of the day, I'm a BLP editor, not a Religion one - I own that bias outright on my user page.) But it is unacceptable that all that information was deleted, and I'll go back through and return it as best I can. |EBY| (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the Theology is the Theology - what the subject preaches is what they preach. Since the subject is not affiliated with any specific denomination or thinking, it is what it is. |EBY| (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you see this article from the baptist press http://www.baptistpress.net/bpnews.asp?id=28522 --DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If Bentley claimed to be a Baptist, or to speak for Baptists, then this would be an important cite. But he doesn't. He just states he is a Christian. Further, under "Theology" there is a paragraph on the arguments against Bentley, which begins "Bentley has drawn doctrinal criticism from the Christian community" and has no fewer then TEN cites talking about everything from his manner, tattoos, and preaching. I firmly believe the saturation point has been reached. Is there plenty of stuff out there that hasn't been cited? Sure, and much of it either doesn't meet standards of a reference or is a duplicate. Similarly, there are dozens and dozens of folks and articles that praise Bentley - and you see none of THAT in the article for the same reasons of quality of source. |EBY| (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Dubious (B)

I noted "ToddBently.org". If this note is not correct and fails the Point of View rules feel free to remove it. Its a large website designed to bash Bently. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 06:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to make it clear that this edit was not an attempt to slander Bently, and a honest attempt to note the construction of that web-site. It was very far from vandalism (though I was not accused of vandalism). If the fact that his name is used in as the name of a website can be noted some how, it'd be great. It seems note-worthy. I see how it could easily be read as slander the way I put it. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 06:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Chandler" :
  • {{citenews|url=http://www.charlotte.com/449/story/676527.html|title=Tattooed preacher says God heals through him|last=Chandler|first=Charles|date=June 19, 2008|publisher=The Charlotte Observer|accessdate=2008-07-05}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.charlotte.com/345/story/676593.html|title=Q&A with preacher Todd Bentley|last=Chandler|first=Charles|date=June 18, 2008|publisher=The Charlotte Observer|language=English|accessdate=2008-06-24}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Todd Bentley/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.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I have done extensive research on Todd bentley and I object to him being shown in such a kind light. Many of his teachings go against christian doctrines. I think it would make the page more accurate if some of the concerns were expressed in a section specifically for valid concerns. For example the angels he so often refers to and the fact he claims to have been told by God that he no longer needs to preach about Christ bu instead he is called to "Get them to believe in 'the angel".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainkatefinch (talk • contribs) 2:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC) I would invite you to - please - "Be Bold"! Remembering that this is not an expose or magazine article that must show the "truth" but is an encyclopedia article for which the criteria for a biography of a living person is what can be verified by an objective and noted source. EBY3221 (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Amen to that: http://www.reachouttrust.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2145 Danzo121 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danzo121 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 16:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)