Talk:Kathryn Kuhlman

message: She was a controversal woman, someone has to write about this. And something about her relationship with Pastor Benny Hinn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.157.171  (talk • contribs) 
I've seen this problem over and over again on wikipedia....
This article is an exposee. This is a genre completely innapropriate for an encyclopedia of any sort. Articles of this sort here are all too often used to tear a personality down, and as personal venting space for the critic/author.
This one needs to be edited to include more biographical information, greater focus on life acheivement and legacy, and a more objective view point inserted.
Consider 1) What sort of information is it that readers of this forum are searching for when they access the site? Most likely this is a historical gloss of the personage, a brief biography, a placement in their social and historical context, and why they are important enough today for them to have read the name and need to find out more. Not, in otherwords a refutation or proof of the claims of the individual.
2) It is not fair or reasonable, when mentioning a particular claim of the subject of a biography, in every instance to add counterevidence immediately afterwards. This is not being objective. It is in fact being less objective, than had the author of such an article provided supporting evidence for the subject's assertations. You see, disputing and pointing out _only_ inconsistancies in this manner is the hallmark of great exposee . It portrays the subject as though there were only these points that might be counterproven in the case. It sets things up as though there had been only inconsistancies in the life.  In otherwords it casts into doubt everything the subject asserts, and in short defames their character.
We know objectively however, that their _are_ always two sides to the story. Other writers might select a set of circumstances that portrayed this particular subject in a very different light. 
Neither one though is appropriate for this forum however. If a point is in dispute, leave it out.
Or say rather, "It is _claimed_ that.....such an such a circumstance ocurred etc" Leave the readership to their judgment and further research to form an opinion. If absolutely necesary, include the refutations in a "controversy" section of the article. It is not alright for that section to be the very article itself though. If nothing else, at least include various view points: Employ this format "Critics claim/assert......"/ "Supporters claim/assert....."
Now, granted, when you include links and sources in your article (which by the way are made extremely poor use of in this article - the citations would disgrace a college freshman)you will naturally find more "positive" writing on this particular subject -that is, more of the opinion of her supporters who are less inclinded for a variety of reasons to be objective. It is only too natural to wish to balance that whith more a more "negative" viewpoint, lest you refer your readers with seemingly full confidence to those aforementioned less than perfectly objective primary sources. Wikipedia however is not the place to publish this counterbalance. It is not any one individuals soap box, or platform to communicate their _personal_ views to the world as though they were indisputable fact.(Be aware, some readers, especially in the younger generations attribute (mistakenly) to wikipedia almost infallible authority.) If it is desired, anyone may create a "Kathyrn Kuhlman refutation/exposee site" elsewhere on the huge expanse of the internet, and link it as one of the sources for the article along with her autobiography, etc. If that be thoughtful, well researched and supported, and moderately objecttive, it will receive the due consideration of its readers and those who are refered to it from the wikipedia article. Wikipedia itself however is not to be a venue for that type of article. 
The authors of this little tirade (along with others of its ilk) should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing to break down the credibility of this forum that so many others have worked so hard to build.**** MattDiClemente (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about as encyclopedic as they come. Expansion of this article to include discussions about her relationship to Benny Hinn could be very difficult to stay neutral, especially as most of what is really know about this subject comes from Benny Hinns own books.Paulrach 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be a critical assessment of her supposed abilities. I reverted the deletions that white washed the article, but more should be added since, as noted above, she was controversial. Arbusto 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: POV publications are not sufficient to establish validity of claims to miracles.  There is no scientifically verifiable evidence that Kuhlman ever healed anyone, and whether or not she used the phrase "faith healer" to describe herself, it is in wide use with reference to her. - WarriorScribe 04:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the various edits that have been made over time, this article has achieved a NPOV -- good work all.  I'm removing the tag. -- technopilgrim 18:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: nPOV

message: A discrepancy exists within the this article by identifying Kuhlman with the "Pentecostal arm of Christianity" (1st paragraph) against the later statement of her being a Charismatic.  Interesting discrepancy to say the least.  Her ministry proceeds the general date given to the birth of the Charismatic movement.  However her ministry came to exist within the time from of it and her thoughts seemed ideologically more compatibe with the Charismatic branch the Pentecostal branch.  Additionally she emerged from a mainline denomination which continued to have major impact upon her thought throughout her ministerial years as evident by her speeches/sermons.  Since I am new to this whole wikipedia thing, I am not going to make any edits to this article because I am not sure the proper protocol for it.  However since Church History is the field of my academic training, I would tend to argue that Kuhlman was in the end an "independent Charismatic".  Though "independent Pentecostal" may be argued quite strongly also.  I argue for "independent Charismatic" on the basis of her thought and ministeria practices.  So I am pro that the line "Pentecostal arm of Christianity" be changed to "Charismatic arm of Christianity" since there does indeed exist practical and academic distinction between the two. (Ryabe 02:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage you to be bold & make edits to the article. No doubt the confusion in the article comes from the broader meaning of the word "charismatic" to indicate those who demonstrate the charismatic gifts, versus the term "Charismatic" which a historian would use to describe the movement that arose in the 2nd half of the 20th century. One caution: in the end you come down that Kuhlman was an "independent Charismatic". That is well-informed opinion, but opinion nonetheless.  It would be good Wikipedian style to find a published source that comes to the same conclusion which could be cited as a reference.  If that can't be found, I'd recommend leaving it out entirely.  Please give it your best shot (or even a reasonable shot!) and I'm sure the article will be better off for your efforts. -- technopilgrim 18:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies: Charismatic or Pentecostal? 

message: I would like to read the parts of Mr. Randi's book that are referenced in this article, but none of the citation sites on wikipedia's book reference page were really much use to me, and also I can find no information on Dr. Robert Nolen. I want to know how James Randi found out people were coming to the meeting without wheel chairs and I want to read his exact words, plus I want to know more about the study that Dr. Robert Nolen conducted. Unless the references are openly available and easy to check, I'm unimpressed with the little numbers next to the text as long as the citation is as shallow as it is  right now. Maybe I'm wrong, the bit about the wheelchairs seems like POV hearsay, and a reference to a reference of Dr. Nolen's study seems like a bit of a stretch. If somebody can get more direct info on this, and hopefully from a source more reputable than a book that was admittedly written to defraud faith healers, I would feel a whole lot better about all this. In short, I'm having trouble connecting these dots. Also, the scare quotes on "healing crusades" don't really seem necessary, that is, if nobody is particularly attached to them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.15.23 (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, his name is William A. Nolen, not Robert, which might be why you are having difficultly. I suggest you first read the newspapers at google's news archive; Randi's claims are well-sourced. Then try sending James Randi or the James Randi Educational Foundation an email. http://www.randi.org I added some newspapers talking about William A. Nolen's study, which is/was well-known. It's mention in Time Magazine, NY Times and more than a dozen newspapers (that's just a quick google search), not including his book and peer-reviewed articles on faith healing (like this peer-reviewed journal). "Healing" should be in quotes unless it has been verified with a WP:RS. Tgreach (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: removed mention of the study and it has been reverted. Do not remove a famous study mentioned in the press and conducted by a famous doctor. Tgreach (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 1 

message: I have read that David Wilkerson ministered alongside Kathryn Kuhlman back in the 70s.  I believe he preached the gospel so souls could be saved, then Kathryn demonstrated a healing minsitry.  Anyone else have information on this?71.31.170.98 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Wilkerson 

message: Including the claim Kuhlman has cured terminally ill people with Richard H. Casdorph's book fails on two policies: 1) WP:RS (the website is not a RS) and 2) miracles are WP:FRINGE.
:1) Richard H. Casdorph's work is not a WP:RS. The webpage cited as the source, for example, mispelled Richard H. Casdorph's name and its not a peer-review/news source. Furthermore, the webpage says their source is Richard H. Casdorph's 1976 book published by a Christian publishing house, which is hardly where peer-reviewed medical science gets published. 
:2) Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories says fringe beliefs, such as miracle claims, get included in wikipedia if they are notable and "judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." Do we have any WP:RS about this Christian publishing house book from the 1970s?
Additionally, Richard H. Casdorph also teaches in Toxic Metal Syndrome that "physical decline is optional." Again, showing a pattern of FRINGE view. C56C (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The material has been removed pending compliance with the above wikipedia policies. C56C (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard H. Casdorph violates FRINGE/RS 

message: A user removed sourced material and added an unsourced POV hagiography. Please add sourced material only. Do not remove sourced material.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pllacandy (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that the hagiography was copy and pasted from: http://www.jwsministries.org/1029/kathryn-kuhlman/ . This is not acceptable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pllacandy (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I just checked the above reference to jwsministries.org and found it empty, so I have found it on the wayback machine. I am not sure if this is the first or second caching of the page, but I did go to: https://web.archive.org/web/20110726212205/http://www.jwsministries.org/1029/kathryn-kuhlman/
to read the article. Ricgal (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid White Wash 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kathryn Kuhlman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403195348/http://kathrynkuhlman.com/ to http://www.kathrynkuhlman.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

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

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

message: — Assignment last updated by AmerRelHist (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: RELI 340 - Religion in America From 1800