Talk:Hank Hanegraaff

message: Much of the "controversies" section is documented here:
june 22, 2006
What?  Nothing about the several money scandals, nothing about the documented plagiarism, nothing about the attempts to meet in the spirit of Matthew 18, nothing about the lack of board meeting minutes where he was allegedly given the reins of CRI.  But it does give a photo of his book along with a list of the chapters?  This article has been pared down to a propaganda piece.
It's more than obvious that this page was written by a Hanegraaff fan. I'm surprised the God-hating pagans who dominate Wikipedia have let this go. Hanegraaff's character is worse than suspect; his sins and crimes are all over the Net... but not here... how weird. Note that even the bias against the "Word of Faith" segment was even allowed to stand, the common SLUR of "word-faith" being used and not corrected. That term shows an undeniable POV.184.7.111.51 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies website

message: I have listened to Hank's radio program nearly every day for about two years. His talkshow spends a great deal of time tearing down other denominations rather than teaching Christian doctrine. He is heavily biased against the LDS church and frequently devotes entire programs or, as he did recently, an entire week to the maligning of the LDS faith. His information is gleaned almost solely from anti-LDS writers and frequently contains misquotes, statements taken out of context, exagerated claims, and complete misrepresentations of LDS doctine, history, and lifestyle. A good example is his statement that Joseph Smith prophesied that the second coming would happen by the year 1891. This conclusion was drawn from the revelation found in Doctrine and Covenants section 130:15-17. A simple reading of the text will reveal that Joseph made no such prediction. Hank's lack of regard concerning truth and his "the ends justify the means" attitude should make anyone question both his ethics and his accuracy.(--Russell63 (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible Answer Man

message: Perhaps someone would like to add a link from the Books section to the following review of "The Last Disciple"?
http://www.christianbookreviews.info/lastdisciple.htm
I know Hank personally as well as having been best friends with his oldest daughter.  They are a good family, good, strong Christian people and if Hank shows any distemper I'm sure it is deserved.  He is a very intelligent man and very strong in his convictions and loyal to his family and loved ones.  We should all strive to be as good!  I'm sad to see disparaging comments regarding Hank and his operation of CRI - sounds like people are quick to judge and criticize when perhaps they don't have all the facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.198.219 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, we knew Hank "personally" once too.  If you want to know the real story, checkout Hard Questions for the Bible Answer Man by Jay Howard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthBringsLight (talk • contribs) 07:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your recent edits. The Howard books appears to be self published and so is not an adequate source for Wikipedia's purpose. Articles on living people need to be particularly careful about providing accurate and reliable sources about anything that might be considered controversial. ✤ JonHarder talk 23:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: You can read about why self published sources are not acceptable in the verifiability policy. Your sources are a book and a website. The book is by Jay Howard and published by "The Religious Research Project" which was founded and directed by Jay Howard. The website is run by family members of Walter Martin. These both are clearly self-published and not an acceptable source for something like this. Find the Times source; it may be better for this purpose. The links added at the bottom are contrary to the external links guideline. I will be undoing your changes again, until you find better sources. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: I pared down the criticisms section to something more pithy.
Here's how it looks now:
Although not subject to widespread criticism, some have accused CRI of paying Hanegraaff an "outlandish" salary (reportedly in excess of $500,000.) He's also been criticized for an alleged intemperate attitude toward his employees and for organizational mismanagement.
I removed the this last line -
"The criticisms, however, are not widespread, and are nowhere near as vocal as those involving the multi-million dollar salaries paid to televangelists."
Besides being bad english, it's sort of a judgment call as to whether or not criticisms against Hank are widespread. Who's to say? He's kind of a minor player thus so would his critics be. The rest of the sentence is poorly written and basically irrelevant. The people who criticize Hank for earning 500 Large don't care what televangelists make. They just think HE's making too much. :)
If anyone thinks I'm being unfair here by all means let me know. I just want to see the narrative stay on track.
Big Daddy 05:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard of him, but I can understand that there might be criticism for his salary. Good edit. Providing criticism in the passive voice is sometimes considered bad form on wikipedia. I can say, "some people think he cheats on his taxes" but unless it's sourcesd it's just heresay. I think there's a wikiguidance on sourcing but I am too lazy to find it right now. You might want to take out the whole thing and just say how much money he makes with a news source to back you up. MPS 23:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paring Down

message: This article gets gets a little bit into hearsay I think. For example, the bit about the $500,000 salary is unsubstantiated. Is this statement based on any actual facts, or just on rumors?
This article leaves a lot to be desired on many levels I think.
"I enjoy his radio show and it helped me to break away from the word of faith movement. I hope he isn't making $500,000 each year because it would make him less credible when lambasting prosperity teachers.  Now if he is making that and more from book royalties, more power to him."
We need people like him and more because the common person doesn't understand how to study the Bible and heck for that matter, most ministers.
: According to the 2004 IRS Form 990 (fiscal year 7/1/2004-6/30/2005), Mr. Hanegraaff was paid $199,000 plus $11,192 for expenses. His wife Kathy was employed as Director of Planning with a salary of $125,000 plus expenses of less than $2500. Copies available for public inspection at www.guidestar.org - EricP 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much hearsay 

message: I've enjoyed his "Bible Answer Man" radio program, and found much of it helpful, but, at the same time, I am not surprised at some of the problems Hanegraaff's apparently had with CRI employees, because one can certainly detect a note of condescension when he disagrees with someone calling-in to the program.  For example, words to the effect of "If you would just read the text of the Biblical passage in question, I don't think you would have the problem you are having with it," with an implication that the caller hasn't read it, or wasn't intelligent enough/reasonable enough/of good enough faith, to figure out what the text was saying.  That being said, I've also heard Hanegraaff be somewhat good natured with callers he disagrees with, so he's by no means consistently condescending.
I've only listened to the program once or twice, but I thought he generally seemed to be a friendly and intelligent person. However, I think it is important to have this large criticisms section because of all the controversial positions he has taken, most of which I didn't know about before reading this article. Academic Challenger 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condescension? 

message: Any known realtionship between the two Hanegraaffs? --Pjacobi 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanegraaff 

message: :Image:Hanegraaff1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hanegraaff1.jpg

message: The 'Recent developments' sections is a real mess.  It currently looks like a talk page section and has numerous misspellings. 207.195.244.215 (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Recent developments' section 

message: Ahem...this is a well-written article, to be sure, yet I find some rather unscholarly material in the "Controversies" section. Skim over it and you'll see what I mean. It looks less like an encyclopedia article and more like a weblog. It gives in great detail attacks on Mr. Hanegraff, but does not offer any objections to those. Can we please be neutral and give both opinions, rather than just those of his adversaries? It just looks so unscholarly. Scorpionman (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I think this is the most biased Wikipedia entry I've ever come across. There is no place for axe-grinding and an extended section of attack after attack in an encyclopedia-like publication. 
At best, the page is the opposite of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.58.241 (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme bias 

message: Mr. Hanegraaff, but essentially no unbiased, verified facts are offered.  The current state of that section gives it the appearance of a flame board, almost as if it should be renamed from "Controversies" to "If you want to flame Hank, post here!"
Within this discussion page (see above) the following note was added: "Much of the 'controversies' section is documented here:  june 22, 2006."  The link offered directs the reader to the Walter Martin website, but clearly this site cannot be unbiased, as Mr. Martin's surviving relatives and their friends (i.e. those who run the waltermartin.com website) are among Hank's most adamant critics.
I am greatly concerned that the trend set, thus far, within the Controversies section is only going to encourage others whom Mr. Hanegraaff has bravely stood against to indiscriminately add flaming slander.  Note that citations are missing throughout nearly the entire section, at this time.
--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree!  People should judge not, least they be judged!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.198.219 (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to see that this article has finally been cleaned-up with the removal of the so-called "Controversies" that amounted to little more than a gossip column.  I hope it stays that way, though I am sure that listing some controversies is useful. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies Section = One-sided and Gossipy 

message: I'm too tired to read what the neutrality note is about, let me guess, someone is mad that Hank's bad side isn't mentioned? Well I put in a link to what is apparently site with the most documentation on his misbehavior with examples of his his credit-theft. I didn't check to see if that site uses the biblical two or three witnesses rules. Perhaps someone can ask the owner of that site, "Are these one person witness accusations as to his unkink behavior, or are there dual witnesses to any single events?"Firestar777 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who added it, but when an encyclopedic entry on a WP:BLP has a criticism larger than the body of the article, that is a clear sign that the article is likely in some violation of WP:NPOV.  Additionally, I removed your blog-sourced Calvin/Armenian addition, as it is clearly a violation of coatracking WP:COAT, along with using blog-sourced material in violation of verifiability/notability/credibility WP:V and original research WP:NOR.  Contrary to popular "Reformed" thought, rejecting Calvinist systematic theology does not automatically make one's theology Armenian.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Removal

message: Per Wikipedia policy on sourcing WP:V, blogs are not adequate sources for Wikipedia, with the exception of the blog of the subject of a Biography of a Living Person.  Additionally, the level of rigor increases for Biographies of Living Persons, particularly as it pertains to citations for criticism.
This article is about Hank Hannegraff, not the Christian Research Institute.  I am removing the external links that primarily deal with CRI criticism, as these are in violation of coatracking an issue larger than Hannegraff.  These links may be relevant to the CRI page in Wikipedia, depending on their use and integration.  Additionally, I am removing the CRI financial link for similar reasons, in addition to the peculiarity of its inclusion, whereas most Biographies of Living Persons do not concentrate on such particulars.
I am removing the Walter Martin family statement, as it is self-published (in violation of WP:V) and disconnected from any reliable source (the site in which it is a sub-page is dead).
The 'Ministry Watch' link is broken (no article appears).  If you do a lookup on the site, it is about CRI, not Hannegraff specifically.  Additionally, it is self-published by this "watchdog" site.  This link should not be in the article, as it is a violation of WP:V, WP:COAT and WP:BLP.  The guidestar.org link is removed, as well, as it deals with CRI - not Hannegraff - and it is broken.
Please refrain from adding these back into the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Jon Harder has repeatedly deleted entries based on primary source material.  His POV is pro-Hanegraaff and Wikipedia does nothing to stop this prejudicial editing.  So much for Wikipedia's credibility...TruthBringsLight (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the last day's edits, as they were all sourced via sources which do not meet the standards required for WP:BLP and WP:V.  Perhaps you could propose a new section here on the discussion page with verifiable sources?--Lyonscc (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The sources were from http://www.dwaddle.com/, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/, http://www.religionnewsblog.com/, and http://www.normangeisler.net . All of these are self-published sites, not sources that comply with WP:BLP or WP:V.  From WP:BLP - Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You can reference Civil Court Cases, and if they are in an official government database, you can link to them, as well.  One of the problem with self-published sites, though, is that their content is completely unregulated, unverifiable, and apt to change.  Each of the sites listed above has a good deal of commentary, etc., apart from the court documentation, and there is no guarantee that the court documents will remain there.  For newspapers, links to the original sources are required, not self-published compendiums of them.  Responsible news sources, even years after the fact, will correct articles if an error was made - copies of articles don't have this benefit. There are all sorts of reasons that original sources are linked to and not copies of them in self-published sites, many of which can be read in WP's policy on verifiability.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies Edits - April 2009 

message: I have spoken with Hank several times on the Bible Answer Man program and I have done a significant amount of research into the controversy surrounding his ministry.  I have spoken directly with one of the parties who was fired by Hank for speaking up for better accounting practices at CRI.  I have a CD recording of Hank getting angry with a former employee who called into the Bible Answer Man program and questioned Hank's accounting practices.  All that I have read in the Controversies section appears to line up very closely with the facts I am aware of.  While the list of problems at CRI seem fairly accurate, it leaves out a number of other problems which seem to have plagued the ministry.  For example it appears that CRI purchased a $60,000.00 Lexus sports car for Hank's use and Hank's wife was on the payroll but employees never saw her do anything for the ministry. The combined salaries of Hank and his wife were indeed in the area of $400 to $500 thousand per year according to a number of reports.  You can find out much more about all this by copying and pasting the following words into a Google search:  
"Hank Hanegraaff" finances
I have not looked into it yet but I have been told that Hank's move to North Carolina (in which he left most of his staff in California) was to get out from under the scrutiny of his staff. I have also heard that he has purchased an expensive home in a gated community next to a golf course in Charlotte.  I have not confirmed that info.  John David  5/23/2006
I've done a major clean-up of the article today, basically re-organizing the sections, rewriting in better English, and including references etc.
The section Controversies seems to be the only remaining major problem. There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims in there, so that section needs to be redrafted more carefully and footnoted so it's clear where the claims are coming from. User:David L Rattigan 21:02 03 May 2006 GMT
:::Frankly, the controversies section is so NPOV that it needs to be removed.  Other than Jihad and other super controversial pages, I haven't seen so biased a writing style.  It almost seems like an email flame instead of Wikipedia.  Delete the section if it isn't rewritten.  User:Hopquick 68.13.238.221 (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up (& neutrality of 'Controversies' section)

message: Jon, I added four primary sources (Los Angeles Times and Christianity Today), and you still edited a large section of my posts.  With respect, and for the record, do you know Hank Hanegraaff, have any link to him or any personal preference for him or his teachings?  I'm asking this question to clarify publicly that your edits are not prejudicial.  Thank you.TruthBringsLight (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded on my . ✤ JonHarder talk 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the language summarizing the LAT article (since the previous language was NPOV and did not describe what was contained within the reference.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change is an improvement. It looks like there is disagreement about them merits of recent changes. WP:BLP is clear that the contentious, ill-documented version must come out. If additional opinions are wanted, the biographies of living persons noticeboard is a good place to go.  ✤ JonHarder talk 00:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: January/February 2010 Clean-up

message: In the future, it might be worth considering that the Criticism and controversy section be renamed and appropriate material placed in other areas. I'm not sure why the Worldwide Church of God is in this section. It appears notable and it could exist in another section. Word-Faith movement and Counterfeit Revival could exist maybe in a "beliefs" section? 2007 Defamation Suit doesn't have to be deleted and could go somewhere else. I've learned from editing other articles that 'Controversy' sections invite people to find and insert criticisms. With that said, it doesn't mean I'm opposed to inserting notable criticism, but I've found that 'Controversy' sections don't work. Basileias (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism and controversy

message: I would like to remove the neutrality banner but wanted to solicit feedback first to find out if there's other issues that need explored. Basileias (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removing the banner. Thanks for reworking the content to eliminate the stand-alone criticisms section. ✤ JonHarder talk 12:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the POV banner. Basileias (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The neutrality of this article is disputed banner

message: Why is this article under the scope of WP:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity? Hanegraaff has been highly critical of Charismaticism (especially Word of Faith theology), and his views are more aligned with Reformed Christianity. – Confession0791 talk 08:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the banner. – Confession0791 talk 16:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: The new section on TLC is much larger than is warranted on a biography page, as it contains a lot of material that is either included in, or belongs on, wikipedia pages for TLC or the TLC Controversies page.  The links to these WP articles suffice for providing background/reference material for the user.  I am recommending that it be significantly shortened to avoid WP:UNDUE weight, and potential coatracking issues.  Also, the information on Gretchen Passantino does not belong here, as she is related to CRI, not Hannegraaff.  
Recommended revision:
In the 2006 controversial lawsuit between the Local churches (affiliation) (TLC) and the authors and publishers of a Christian countercult book that labeled TLC as a cult, Hannegraaff filed an amicus brief with the Texas Supreme Court, saying that TLC wasn't a cult.  This resulted in criticism of Hannegraaff for his 'unwise and unfounded' action." Plowman, Edward E.  Without apology
This keeps all of the included links and references, so that the reader can choose to dig deeper into the issue, if they so desire, while keeping the content specifically on Hannegraaff, the subject of this WP article.  It also avoids the issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK.  I would still have a question about whether www.worldmag.com is considered a Verifiable Source, along with the notability of this particular issue.  It is likely that, at some point in the future, the "Controversies" section (which are discouraged by WP - see Wikipedia:Controversy sections) will need to be severely condensed and/or dispersed within the article to avoid the overall WP:NPOV issues associated with it.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead an edited out the remaining explanatory text about the TLC suit, which is part of the Local Church Controversies article, and isn't really about Hannegraaff.  The background of the case that applies to Hannegraaff is his amicus brief, which said they weren't a cult.  The appeals and outcomes are not related to Hannegraaff, the subject of this wiki article.--Lyonscc (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Local Churches 

message: What is Hank Hannegraaf's position on Israel and Christian Zionism? --41.151.23.106 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position on Israel 

message: Substituted at 17:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment