Talk:Benny Hinn/Archive 1

message: Please know that this article is not an example of Christian-bashing.  In fact, it is quite the opposite.  Attempting to reduce the credibility of a well-known false profit who claims Christianity actually BENEFITS the Christian cause.  By letting folks know that Benny Hinn is a money-chaser, we also help let folks know he's the EXCEPTION; he's NOT to be construed as an example of how all Christians operate.
Fine.Then it shouldn't take lies and half truths and distortions of Hinns' words to BENEFIT the Christian cause.Saltforkgunman 01:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT Christian-Bashing 

message: the only POV I see within this article are from your edits. everything else that you claim is POV has been verified by necessary citations. --Phil 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to [[User:Saltforkgunman|Saltforkgunman]] 

message: Before adding this section to the article, please cite reliable sources for all of its content. I've moved the section here for now:
:On November 7, 2003, Hinn appeared on This Is Your Day! with Joesph "Jo Jo" Medawar, a Hollywood producer who ran Steeple Enterprises, a film studio co-owned by Matthew Crouch, heir-apparent to the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Medawar appeared on the show to promote a new show he claimed would be broadcast on TBN titled D.H.S.: The Series, a faith-based spy drama about the Department of Homeland Security. Medawar claimed that the show was receiving official backing from the real Department of Homeland Security and was based on a real life retired Homeland Security agent. U.S. congressman Dana Rohrabacher admitted to opening doors in Washington to let Medawar meet with five congressmen and staff members of the House of Representatives' Homeland Security Committee to pitch the show, and even introduced Medawar to Laura Bush at a GOP fundraiser. Medawar paid Rohrabacher $23,000 for Rohrabacher's own screenplay for the series. On Hinn's show, Medawar played the show's trailer and prayed with Hinn and some of the show's actors on-air.
:Police arrested Medawar in September 2005 after they found evidence that's Medawar's proposal was a scam. The show was a cover to steal money from Steeple's investors - most of them churchgoing Southern California residents, including the retired Homeland Security member - by selling $5.5 million in Steeple stock they owned. It was revealed that Medawar's appearance on Hinn's TV show was a ruse to get guillible potential investors to give money to his project, only a small amount of which was used for the show. A vast majority of the money contributed to the lavish lifestyle of Medawar and his associates, including Alison Heruth-Waterbury, an actress who appeared with Medawar on This Is Your Day, who received $40,000 per month in rent from Medawar for her new Beverly Hills mansion. It was also revealed that trailer Medawar played on This Is Your Day contained film clips from other movies Medawar didn't produce nor had permission to use (such as Enemy of the State). Medawar plead not guilty on all 23 counts the FBI brought up against him, including mail fraud and obstruction of justice.
:This incident was reported by The Los Angeles Times and The Wittenburg Door.
In addition, most of this content should be in an article about Medawar, not in Benny Hinn's article. At most it should be 3 or 4 sentences explaining that Medawar went on the show, that he was involved in a big scam, and that the show was a ruse to get gullible investors. All of these things need definite, reliable sources, preferrably online. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-17 15:02
: I agree there. I've removed it for the time being. At the very least it needs decent references before it's added back. Jammycakes 07:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hinn and Medawar

message: Could editors who helped improve this article head on over to Peter Popoff and see what we can do there to make that article look more like this one? I just tagged that article with NPOV and since it seems to have escaped under the radar screen was hoping this would help it gain some visibility and a keen editorial revision.
Thanks,
--ScienceApologist 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help at Peter Popoff

message: The Fraudster category is inappropriate here since Hinn hasn't been convicted of fraud by a court of law, so any designation of him as such is POV. (See the Fraudsters talk page for a discussion on this.) I'm also a little bit unsure about the "Religious scandals" category too though that probably needs further discussion to reach a consensus. Jammycakes 13:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraudster? 

message: The "questionable statements" in the list all come from the same source, "Illustration by 4G² Issue #191, January/February 2004". I am not familiar with this particular publication and haven't been able to find anything on Google about it other than references to this article here on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to what this publication is, where it comes from, who wrote the article in question, what is their POV, how reliable is it, are these quotes verifiable, and so on? In other words is this a reliable source? I'm flagging it as not citing primary sources until this point is cleared up. Jammycakes 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks. If their statement of faith is anything to go by, they could potentially be the kind of people who would give someone like Benny Hinn a fair hearing, which is one important thing that we need to look out for as far as references are concerned. (I would be a bit more wary if they were cessationists for instance). On the other hand, they do seem to have some particular mission to dig up as much dirt on Benny Hinn and certain other ministries as they can. The other problem is that it's a tertiary source from what appears to be a publication that is primarily satirical rather than serious in tone. I've wikified the references to that article, though I'm pretty dissatisfied as to its value as a reliable, NPOV source. Some primary or secondary sources would help -- eg a direct reference to Hinn's claims that he was a brilliant but socially isolated student and similarly to a rebuttal of this statement. Who exactly diagnosed Evander Holyfield's heart condition in the first place, and who exactly claimed that he was mis-diagnosed? That's the kind of thing we need to look for as far as reliable sources are concerned. Jammycakes 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of questionable statements 

message: "At these services, Hinn carries out the purported miracles on whoever comes up on stage with an allegedly healed medical condition, whether it be Lou Gehrig's disease, or AIDS, or arthritis, or cancer. "
--- Can anyone clarify this sentence / process here? Either
1. the person claims they are healed before coming up onto the stage and the fact is recognised / confirmed on stage or
2. the person is healed when they are prayed for by Benny.
It doesn't make sense to say that Benny carries out a 'purported miracle' on a person with an 'allegedly healed condition' (unless the concensus is saying that the preacher and the 'patient' are in collusion ? Johnmarkh 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Healing timing / methodology 

message: am i the only one who thinks that that whole section is pov? i don't want to make any drastic changes uneccesarily, though. Colorfulharp233 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you're not, and it's not limited to this section. There's a lot of soapboxing in this article, which, regardless of its accuracy, is not appropriate for Wikipedia, for the simple reason that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It also needs a lot of cleanup in terms of quoting (and wikifying) reliable, neutral sources. Jammycakes 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of questionable statements

message: Acording to the rules of Wikipedia, Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. I tried to remove the scandallos material but a user calle KOS says that is vandalism. How is the removal of scandalous material from Wikipedia effected? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.155.159 (talk • contribs) .
: You're right in principle, but the problem was that your edit summary was vague and it didn't give a clear rationale for fairly extensive deletions to the article. Your edits did also seem a bit indiscriminate -- some of them would have led us to believe that Benny Hinn is not only perfect but doesn't have any critics either. A couple of suggestions I'd make are (1) state the reason for your edit clearly in the edit summary, wikilinking to the relevant articles on Wikipedia policy where you can, such as WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:BLP. (2) Make it clear what you expect of people in that respect when they're putting the content back (as I did when removing the Medawar section - see my edit summary in the page's history). (3) State what you have done on the talk page and why, and sign your talk using four tilde (~) signs. (4) It might be more appropriate to make several edits and give a clear and distinct rationale for each one rather than changing everything in one go. (5) If this does end up in an edit war, Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process that you can check out. (6) You would do well to create a user account and say something about your Wikipedia activity on your user page, so people know where you're coming from. If you do create an account, you can add this and other pages to your watch list and see what is happening with them. Jammycakes 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scandalous and Inappropriate Material 

message: Is it totally necessary to keep the reference to a huge erection in the History section?
"Although he never met her personally, he often attended her “healing services” and has often cited her as an influence in his life. Ne has been plagued by numerous   detractors throughout his career, most notably Hugh G. Rekshun." Wikimike 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giant Boners 

message: Hinn had radio talk show host Paul McGuire on his latest TV program.  Hinn and McGuire discussed such things as suitcase nukes being smuggled into the United States and being detonated, the formation of a "North American Union" with a "amerodollar" currency, and the rise of the Antichrist out of the European Union.  
Hinn made a comment "I don't believe we have more than 20 or 30 years before the return of the Lord."  They discussed the inevitability of a nuclear weapon being detonated in the United States very soon.  Very strong statements; can we add them?  Clinevol98 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think it would be detrimental to the quality of the article. On the other hand, there might be a place for it on Wikiquote if you can cite a reliable, verifiable source and it satisfies Wikiquote's notability and NPOV criteria. Wikipedia also mandates no original research. Jammycakes 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it just happened and it's not like Hinn has a huge viewing audience, I doubt if I'd be able to find a source so I could site it.  Paul McGuire's website  is full of the statement but they were making, but obviously that doesn't prove that they were said by Hinn or on his TV program.  I just thought that since these are more of the end of the world predictions-style statements they might have a place in the article since they cause a stir, even among Christians (I am one and don't believe any of this fear-mongering by Hinn, Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, and others).  Clinevol98 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Claims 

message: I've moved the quotes, prophecies etc to Wikiquote as that is a more appropriate place to put them. I commented out the ones that didn't cite their sources for the time being. Jammycakes 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Substituted at 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment