Talk:Jim Bakker

message: *" It isn't really appropriate to state that Jrarchy which can exercise discipline over its credentialed ministers. This discipline is handled on the district level by a district superintendent and a district presbytery. (Districts roughly correspond with states, though some states have more than one district, and some districts comprise more than on state.) I believe that Bakker actually resigned his A/G credentialed before they were taken away (the Assemblies of God equivalent of "defrocking"), but I don't have anything other than personal recollection right now. Realkyhick 01:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is a pretty dirty man. I see what Falwell meant. He gives a bad name to Pentecostals everywhere. I heard that he was also bisexual here, and since it is sourced added it to the article. Эйрон Кинни 06:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I really want more biographical info.  I remember that sometime in 1999-2000 Rolling Stone magazine did an article on Jim Bakker's son, who has since covered himself in tattoos and started an urban ministry / skateboard enthusiast club.  Can someone say more? 128.208.95.118 21:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim Bakker's family

message: I changed Jim Bakker's year of birth from 1939 to 1940.  He mentioned on a telecast on his program, the Jim Bakker Show, on April 22, 2008, he was born in 1940.  I am going to take his word for it.--Susan Nunes 13 May 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.60.24 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth Date

message: *Note: per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, this entire discussion naming specific living persons is deleted JGHowes talk -  04:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisexuality? 

message: It seemed more encylopedic that way.  I also removed the "trivia warning" as a result. RSLancastr 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was removed without discussion. Perhaps it should be restored until/unless its content is added to other sections per the nonbinding/nonpolicy WP:HTRIV. Mike Doughney 11:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited this article for bio style with an Infobox and addition of sourced text. The unsourced stuff having old  tags needed to go per WP:BLP. A brief, representative sampling of popular culture refs. is included for encyclopedic purposes, but certainly not an all-inclusive list. JGHowes talk -  22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to the "Jim Bakker in Popular Culture" section?  It was deleted without discussion.  So I've restored it.  Thattherepaul 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trivia" Renamed to "Jim Bakker in Popular Culture" 

message: The book cover is a valid fair use of the image as long as the book is discussed in the text. If it wasn't the fair use rules would not apply. Anynobody 08:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use 

message: I watched The Eyes of Tammy Faye, and in it Tammy Faye says that there were actually two shows at the beginning: a children's show with puppets in the morning, and the 700 club talk/variety show at night.
Nospamtodd 13:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Different Shows

message: From the article:
:Between 1984 and 1987, the Bakkers received annual salaries of $200,000 each and Jim awarded himself over $4,000,000 in bonuses.
and
:The board of PTL, independent of Jim and Tammy, awarded the Bakkers the 3+ million dollar bonus over a period of five years. They also determined Jim Bakker's salary of $200,000 per year.
silsor 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this article had a lot of totally unsourced information, which is surprising in light of Wikipedia's strict policies regarding Living Persons biographies. I've cut the previously tagged unsourced items, but there's still more that's got to be edited out, unless someone finds reliable sources. JGHowes talk -  02:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo the above remark! Wikipedia is also SUPPOSED to be about PROOF! Where is the substantiation for so much of these libelous charges, i.e.:
From 1984 to 1987, Bakker and his PTL associates sold $1,000 "lifetime memberships", which entitled buyers to a three-night stay annually at a luxury hotel at Heritage USA. According to the prosecution at Bakker's later fraud trial, tens of thousands of memberships had been sold, but only one 500-room hotel was ever completed. Bakker sold more "exclusive partnerships" than could be accommodated, while raising more than twice the money needed to build the actual hotel.
Note the repeated use of the word "sold" for what was understood to be gifts and the two separate terms (enclosed in quotes) to describe the same gifts and not one bit of substantiation for any of these indictments.
Where is any mention of the legal reasons why Jim was let of prison decades before his 45 year prison sentence was served? Where is the mention of HIS CONVICTION BEING OVERTURNED? Where is the mention of false charges? This kind of yellow journalism is why Wikipedia always has to beg for money! People with character see the unsubstantiated LIES that Wikipedia editors allow because they have the same biases AND DON'T CARE WHEN THOSE THEY DESPISE ARE LIBELED!76.6.66.199 (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in the article? 

message: I have removed material from  that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Doc. This should be removed until sourced properly. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations removed 

message: Has anyone got sourced information on his trial, conviction, and prison sentence?  I know he served time with at least two other people who have Wikipedia articles.  Rklawton (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay Bakker's book, Son of a Preacher Man, which I have, delves into the trial and incarceration in some detail. I'll try and get to it in the next few days. JGHowes talk -  11:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source for the other cellmate, Roger Nelson, so I included it.  In his autobiography, Bakker refers to him not by name but as an "egomaniacal skydiver."  I know that Nelson and Bakker together conspired to move LaRouche out of the cell by "driving him crazy".  However, the only source for that would come from Nelson's as yet unpublished autobiography, so I didn't add it.  Rklawton (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conviction

message: As the only material in John Ankerberg that is not based upon WP:SPS is the John Ankerberg#Exposing Jim Bakker section (which is based on a NYT article that is primarily on the topic of Baker, not Ankerberg), I am proposing that this section be merged here, and that John Ankerberg be redirected to this article, per WP:BLP1E. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * turns up fairly thin reliable-third-party pickings on that topic. And anything that does turn up could as easily go into Evangelicals and Catholics Together -- which doesn't even mention Ankerberg currently. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: There would be no confusion if (i) the redirect was to the 'Scandals' section & (ii) that section explicitly mentions Ankerberg's accusations against Baker. That "he is a theologian in his own right" is an WP:ITEXISTS argument -- for an independent article we need significant third party coverage on the topic of Ankerberg himself, not the Baker scandal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Really? Because the only source in his article mentioning any 'theological' status is his own website (for the claim that "he is the president and founder of the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute"). That hardly establishes notability in that field. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I see that this article and Lori Bakker have merger-tags on them, but that nobody has set up a thread for discussion of the proposal on talk. So here one is.
*Support merging Lori Bakker here, per lack of sourcing in that article, lack of any indication that Lori is discussed other than in the context of Jim, and thus lack of indication of independent notability, and WP:MERGE#Rationales #2 (Overlap), #3 (Text) & #4 (context). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 2 

message: The sentence that refers to Bakkers' owing the IRS $6 mil combines 2 unrelated subjects. It is drastically paraphrased from the reference.ExpatSalopian (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sequiteur/poor paraphrasing 

message: I'm requesting a recent picture for Jim Bakker's profile picture with the appropriate license to improve the article.
2001:5B0:4BD3:43F8:AC57:8D6B:AA45:88DD (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well..that picture is 33 years old, I was thinking of something more recent. 2001:5B0:4BD3:43F8:617B:8395:47E7:73CD (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this is the best we can do until a more recent picture comes out with a free license. Although it's old, at least this picture is from the Bakker's heyday. I visited Bob Einstein's article in the days after his passing and didn't even recognize that the man in the picture was him at first! Apparently the only photo we could get of him was from years before he became well known. That's just how wikipedia's policies work.LM2000 (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Profile picture

message: This part is confusingly written. It's hard to read:
* A cover-up of hush money paid to a church secretary, Jessica Hahn, for an alleged rape led to his resignation from the ministry. Subsequent revelations of accounting fraud brought about his conviction on felony charges, imprisonment and divorce. Bakker later remarried and returned to televangelism, founding Morningside Church in Blue Eye, Missouri. 
It's better to write in active voice, such as:
* He resigned from the ministry over a cover-up of hush money to a church secretary, Jessica Hahn, for an alleged rape. 
Also, why is him divorcing and re-marrying in the lead? It's obviously not an important part of his career, and it certainly shouldn't be up there with imprisonment for fraud and allegations of rape. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: His divorce was an important event because Tammy Faye was a major part of his career and TV presence (cofounder of The PTL Club), and the divorce was part of the aftermath of his crimes and misbehavior. The remarriage isn't necessarily important, but his return to televangelism certainly is an important part of his life. You can take out the remarriage, but everything else is notable enough to be in the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing writing in lead 

message: I removed a passage that included the gibberish
 "...all have been of N.Y. since the 1970's; Jim Bakker indelibly imprinted upon women."
Someone has reverted this edit. Please either convert it into a meaningful addition to the article or revert the reversion. Chenopodiaceous (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched the article and couldn't find the passage. I also looked at the edit history since your edit and couldn't see that it was restored. Am I missing something? Sundayclose (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of nonsensical text 

message: Article needs updating.  This recidivist criminal is still scamming his viewers. 24.1.67.182 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a few minutes to actually read the article. It's already there. Sundayclose (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Read your own page. It might not be a scam after all. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronavirus Scams 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion