Talk:Benny Hinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Portal:Christianity
 Christianity Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments


To-do list for Benny Hinn: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand: Ministry and theology section needs more detail, especially on theology and quotes.
  • Other: Find citations for the remaining unreferenced statements.

In compliance with Wikipedia policy, it is forbidden to post comments that are of a strong negative distaste and could lead to libel. I suggest that you edit the obvious personal attacks against the individual, his religious group etc. and focus on providing NEUTRAL INFORMATION as a biography is intended. You fix it so that it complies with Wikipedia rules or I'll fix it for you. Kevin D. James


Contents

[edit] General cleanup November 2006

I've done a fairly major cleanup on this article, mainly to eliminate soapboxing, clear up POV issues, cite and wikify references, and make it read more like an encyclopedia article rather than a LiveJournal rant written by a committee. I have also archived the talk page as most of the discussions applied to old versions of the article.

There's still a bit more that could be done. In particular, we could do with a "theology and ministry" section going into a bit more detail about his ministry and teachings in particular. There are also still a number of statements in the article that need citations. --Jammycakes 13:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies: IRS and Tarrant County reviews

This was in the article but I can't find any reference to it on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's website, so I've moved it here. Can anyone provide a link?

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported in August 2005 that the Tarrant County Appraisal District (responsible for determining the assessed value of real estate for tax purposes and for granting property tax exemptions) was reviewing whether Hinn's facility in Grapevine met the requirements for a property tax exemption. [citation needed]Specifically, the review would focus on whether the "church" designation, the same one Anthony and Trinity Foundation claim is false, was used to claim an exemption to which Hinn's ministry may not have been entitled. The review was requested by Anthony and Trinity Foundation.[citation needed]

Also, can anyone provide any information on the outcome of the IRS and Tarrant County investigations? This information needs to be included if it's available from a reliable source. Jammycakes 07:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Hinn page

There's alot of anti-Hinn stuff on this page. Hinn has preached to millions of people and many of given their lives to Christ. Just because someone goes to a prayer service and isn't immediately healed is not a sign that Hinn is at fault. That's utterly stupid. Jtpaladin 16:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You should have seen it a couple of weeks ago. The article was packed out with negative soapboxing that didn't cite its sources. I've got rid of the worst of it, but I'd agree that more could be done. Personally I don't think the last paragraph (about the India crusade) adds anything of note to the article, and perhaps we should just remove it altogether. — jammycakes 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it was much worse before. So bad I wouldn't touch it. It's almost at a point where I can edit it without wanting a shower after. :) --Steven Fisher 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, what's "stupid" is defending this conman. --68.149.181.145 18:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As I'm sure you noticed, nobody asked you. --Steven Fisher 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, this guy has been exposed as a fraud. Why do people still defend him? --68.149.181.145 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not doing any defense of him. As I said below, I don't even like him. But regardless of what I think or what you think, Wikipedia is not a place for random, anonymous hate comments on talk pages, or calling people stupid. It's also not a place for rants on article pages, nor even presenting facts with a slant. Is that more clear? --Steven Fisher 01:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right there. Calling Benny Hinn a fraud or a con man, even on the talk pages, is a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy and as such is not acceptable. He has not been convicted of a criminal offence, and as far as I am aware, the official investigations of him and his ministry have not concluded with any evidence of wrongdoing. If I am wrong about this, you need to cite reliable sources to back up your point. — jammycakes 12:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, is it really a con when he's up front and honest about asking people to give him $6 million dollars so he can buy a jet?[1]140.140.58.8 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is when telling vulnerable people that it's what God wants them to do. Do you work for Benny Hinn or something? Robko626 01:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this individual listed as a Famous Person for Dana Point, when other communities have no such listing? What criteria warrants this individual to be listed in this category? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.4.143.249 (talk • contribs) 23 November 2006, 05:12.

Horsham, where I live, has a similar listing -- and it's a lot longer. — jammycakes 14:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OMG

I just watched the fifth estate doco on this dude - I had no idea such conmen still existed!  Glen  22:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does make him out to be a bit of a cross between Bill Gates and Del Boy. As a Charismatic Christian my gut reaction is to be favourable towards him and wary of negative statements, but nonetheless I do think some of the criticisms that are made about him are actually justified. Having a private jet is a thoroughly distasteful extravagance for starters, even if it is only used for ministry purposes, as he claims.
Having said that, I think we do need to keep everything in proportion and maintain a cool head. I'd also like to make a plea to everyone to bear in mind that the purpose of the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not the merits or otherwise of Benny Hinn himself and his ministry. (see WP:TPG) — jammycakes 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Re this talk page, statement is 100% accurate however I dont see an abundance of commetary about Hinn himself here  Glen  22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm referring more to the talk archives. There was a bit of a slanging match going on, and we need to avoid it degenerating into something like that again. Sorry for the confusion. — jammycakes 22:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I know very little about Hinn. But having an aircraft is not a valid criticism at all. CEOs and athletes have aircraft, why shouldn't a man of God? For all you kno, Hinn has dreamed of flying around in a jet his entire life, and received a direct answer from God before someone sold him one at a ridiculously low price. --Steven Fisher 17:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is that (a) he lives a lavish lifestyle, and (b) he gets a lot of stick for it. These are both verifiable facts and have a place in the article. Whether or not this lavish lifestyle is justified, on the other hand, is opinion and doesn't. — jammycakes 09:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I agree about the article. I'm just questioning the assertion here that having an airplane is distasteful. --Steven Fisher 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point jammycakes my opinion isnt appropriate here thanks for the heads up... Steven I'm assuming by that comment that you havent seen the fifth estate doco?  Glen  09:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I don't deliberately expose myself to the mainstream media making judgments about God's people. They simply have no mandate to do so. The bible says in 1 Timothy 5:17 that leaders are counted worthy of double honor, after all, and that word for "honor" includes good possessions. So seeing that he's wealthy wouldn't really impact my opinion at all. Now, that doesn't mean I'm a supporter of Hinn... I have other problems with him, which don't seem to be in this article yet. I'd add them if there was a verifiable source for them. --Steven Fisher 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you presume that Hinn is one of God's people because he uses the name of God to enrich himself? Does that make him a "leader worthy of double honor"? I'm sure you probably have a Bible verse for that one too...Well, how about Matthew 19:24, in which Christ says "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." I think you're confusing principles of Christianity with principles of Capitalism.
I'm a strong believer in the principles of Wikipedia, but Steven, you're in the stratosphere of POV with your postings here. Refering to Hinn as a "man of God" just because he claims to be one is akin to categorizing Hitler as a good German, just because that's what he claimed to be. Robko626 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess you don't see the irony of complaining about my POV talk page comment by posting your own POV comments. You're seriously quoting Matthew 19:24 as proof that God wants people poor? Trying reading the verse in context, including verses 25 and 26. If you still don't get it, feel free to email me, because the Benny Hinn talk page isn't the place to discuss it. But unless you can back your doctrine up with bible verses that mean what you think in context, don't bother. I'm not swayed by opinions, only biblical facts. --Steven Fisher 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Your phrase "biblical facts" is POV. Claiming that you understand what God wants is POV. Applying a judgement (e.g. "man of God") is POV. Stating that the mainstream media makes judgements about "God's people" is POV. You make all these presumptuous statements, then when anyone questions you, you accuse THEM of POV. Don't assume that you can make those kinds of statements without being challenged.
I referred to Matthew 19:24 to demonstrate the fact that verses can be used to support both sides of any argument. Your reference to 1 Timothy has absolutely no relevance to the discussion about Hinn, nor does it belong on this page, because it presumes that the Bible is some kind of non-subjective constant for Christians and non-Christians alike, which it is not. The fact that you referred to Hinn as a "man of God" is evident enough on its own that your statement is POV. Please refer to my post under "Controversies and critics" for a relevant discussion about this topic. Robko626 19:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with someone expressing a POV on a talk page. What I disagree with is complaining about it and injecting your own POV in the complaint as you have done. If you want to have a discussion on this involving scripture — which you brought up first here — have at it in email, not on the talk page. Otherwise, don't snipe at talk page comments. Is that more clear? --Steven Fisher 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I think I understand where you are coming from now. I was asked if I had seen something. I said I hadn't, and this is why. Nowhere do I question having Fifth Estate as a valid source for the article. If the claim and reference fail verifiability, I'll let someone else discover it. Do you have some objection to me choosing not to watch The Fifth Estate myself for POV reasons, or is your objection just me explaining why I didn't watch it here in the talk space? --Steven Fisher 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw it the other day and I must admit I found it rather biased. Personally I don't think it meets Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source -- it contains a lot of original research and some of its claims seem to be unverifiable. — jammycakes 02:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sources are expected to contain original research! This is not an argument against citing the documentary. (Not that I'm saying that it is reliable, since I haven't seen it, but the WP:NOR comment is just misplaced.) Phiwum 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think you have a point there. Perhaps a better reference would be to media bias -- surprisingly though, WP:RS doesn't seem to say a great deal about this particular topic. I had a further look round the fifth estate website after watching the Hinn documentary -- it seems to me that they're into crackpot conspiracy theories and things a bit, which is why I'm somewhat cautious about placing too much weight on them. — jammycakes 18:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven, I think your edits today are a step in the right direction. I'd just take issue with some of your citation needed tags though: I don't think they're really necessary because the information is all there in the wikilinked articles on the Trinity Foundation, The Sword of the Lord & Personal Freedom Outreach. There's also a balance that we need to draw in the controversies section. If we start flooding that section with references it can end up looking like soapboxing again, which is something we need to avoid. — jammycakes 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the "allegedly lavish lifestyle" bit, but maybe a rewording is a better solution there. --Steven Fisher 18:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing alleged about his lavish lifestyle -- it is unarguably lavish. I don't think the criticism section is long enough. -- Kidane (not signed in)

Don't just lengthen it for the sake of it. That's soapboxing. If you think anything needs to be added, make sure it adds something of substance and is stated in a neutral tone. And cite your sources. — jammycakes 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the word "lavish" carries a moral judgement instead of just wealth, it is indeed only alleged. If you can think of a better word, though, feel free to put it in there instead. --Steven Fisher 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think so? I think the word itself is neutral enough. It's probably more the context that it's in that gives it a negative connotation. The controversy is more in how he achieves said lavish lifestyle -- he's perceived by some as being a bit of a twenty-first century Tetzel. — jammycakes 23:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked up lavish, and you're right. It doesn't carry the meaning I've always associated with it. Interesting how I could have something like that wrong. --Steven Fisher 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements/prophecies

Various statements made by Hinn are fairly well-documented and accessible, such as his claim that "Castro will die in the 90's".[2] I don't think an article about Hinn can be complete without a mention of some of these. Shawnc 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is information relevant to Benny Hinn, but JammyCakes removed it on Oct. 25. His edit summary says to see the talk page, but I see nothing. I am adding the prophecies section back. Any article which fails to discuss Hinn's prophecies is woefully incomplete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phiwum (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 November 2006.
The statements are in Wikiquote and the talk is in the archives. I'd agree that a discussion of some of his statements might be in order, but please don't turn this article back into another POV rant. Make sure you cite good quality sources and keep it in proportion. — jammycakes 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the text to aim for NPOV. Please let me know what you think about both the text and the sources. Note: I am not vouching for the sources, since I'm not familiar with them. If any of them are unreliable, I will remove that example. If no examples remain, then maybe we can say nothing about his prophecies. But does he include any prophecies in print? That would be useful (which may be a good reason not to include prophecies in your books!). Phiwum 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded it slightly, removed the subheading and refactored it into a single paragraph, which I think looks a bit more neutral. I think I'll leave others to argue over the NPOV and reliability of the sources though :-) — jammycakes 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best known for...

Actually, I would have said he's best known for This Is Your Day. I agree we need a citation here; I don't think it's enough for people to just pass through and change the "best known for" to the way they've heard of him. If we can't establish a "best known," the sentence should probably be struck. --Steven Fisher 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloggers

I have struck and will strike again the reference to "a number of bloggers." A random selection of bloggers are not a valid source for a claim against Hinn, and the wording is very weasely. This claim utterly fails to fall within WP:BLP, as does it references. --Steven Fisher 06:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, you're wikilawyering the wrong guideline policy there; the one that applies is WP:RS, and ScienceBlogs, where Benny Hinn's Latest Scam Dispatches from the Culture Wars is found is widely used and regarded on the project as a acceptable, if partisan, source. That's because Ed Brayton is a well known commentator on these issues and Science Blogs are part of a reputable publisher, Seed Magazine. And Brayton in his article cites the other blogger, Pam Spaulding, and her article, making it notable for reference here by default. I understand why you're bent on removing content critical of Hinn, but this line of reasoning is not going to get you too far since Brayton is cited in nearly every intelligent design article as a source on Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 06:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not acceptable, and sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting it is will not make it so. Further, even if a blogger is a valid source for some other argument, it does not make him a valid source for Hinn.
If you think this is valid and should stay, you need to find a source that is acceptable and de-weasel the claim. I'm more than happy to let a non-weaselly claim with specific references to back it stand. But you're not there. "A number of bloggers" -- so the number is two? Non-notable. You could say "a number of bloggers" with a number of zero, one or three just as easily. Further, I could immediately get two bloggers to post that it's utterly reasonable, and say a number of bloggers agree with him. It is an utterly useless claim, and the citations do not back it. (For the record, I don't think a private jet is necessary. But that doesn't come into this argument; what enters into this argument is whether it's non-weasely, notable, and backed correctly.)
Further, BLP is definitely the right wikilink for this. Since you are inserting an allegation against a living person, you must back it up sufficiently. Finally, don't assume I have an agenda here; the person who originally put this claim in and claimed two blog links satisfied the citation need clearly had an agenda. Removing dubious assertions is part of what we're supposed to be doing here. Not only should you not be reverting this change, but if you are serious about the quality of wikipedia you should have done it first. --Steven Fisher 07:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
In other words, what you are saying is that, per BLP, you need a reliable source? Well, ScienceBlogs is a reliable source. They are published by a major magazine, and the writers are reputable experts. Your saying it isn't the case doesn't mean that it is. Brayton is a reliable source. Guettarda 07:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
First you tossed the criticisms because you claim they were not notable and "fail WP:BLP." Now you're trying to claim they should go because they're not experts? Um, no. Which policy requires critics be experts? FeloniousMonk 07:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Even if you do address whether or not ScienceBlogs is a reputable source - and you've come nowhere near that - you still have a major problem in that it does not back the claim "a number of bloggers." You need to come up with a non-weaselly and notable claim. And I firmly believe that once you come up with a valid claim, you will find that ScienceBlogs is not a valid source for that claim. (Unless your claim is simply "ScienceBlogs claims..." which might be a good approach to take for resolving this, actually.) Steven Fisher 07:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
So what are you actually trying to say? Please do explain. And please lay off the insults - they violate our policy on personal attacks and civility. Guettarda 07:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
A random selection of bloggers are not a valid source for a claim against Hinn, and the wording is very weasely. And I have not insulted anyone. --Steven Fisher 15:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You haven't insulted anyone? What the heck do you consider "sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting it is will not make it so" to be? That's a clear personal attack and highly incivil. Please refrain from behaviour like that in the future - it is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, you yourself stated that ScienceBlogs "is widely used and regarded on the project as a acceptable, if partisan, source." The fact that it is a partisan source supports Steven Fisher's argument. WP:BLP is a relevant reference. Blogs as a source are weak to begin with. Using it as a reference in a biography of a living person clearly goes against WP:BLP. It does not belong in Hinn's bio. Robko626 19:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
We clearly need to escalate this somehow. I would have thought that BLP saying to aggressively delete comments like this in the article space and specifically putting that deletion outside of the 3R rule would have been enough, but apparently not. So how do we call someone in to deal with this? --Steven Fisher 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments like what? Brayton is a reliable expert source. He isn't neutral, but NPOV does not require neutrality, just balance. Blogging is a medium, not a class of sources. A lot of blogs are unreliable sources because there's no way to verify the authorship, etc. ScienceBlogs is published by a reputable publisher - sure, it isn't peer-reviewed science, but it's a solid source. Guettarda 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you're still misunderstanding my objection here. Replace "bloggers" with "people", if it helps you see it. The problem is still there. The phrase is backed with citations, but it is only possible to back with those particular citations because it is weasely, and as such it does not belong in a BLP page. It either needs rephrasing (and possibly new citations, depending on the new phrasing) or it needs to be struck. BLP demands it not be there in the current form. Look at it this way: What stops someome from adding "A number of bloggers have responded saying those bloggers are idiots," and citing that with three bloggers? Or what if someone changed the phrase to "75% of bloggers agree with Hinn" and added six links that agreed with him? If they're an expert on something, whether or not it is Hinn, according to your interpretation that'd be acceptable in this article. Clearly allowing the content this kind of argument leads to madness. (And please stop asserting Brayton as an expert on Hinn, unless you can back it.) --Steven Fisher 19:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
So are you arguing that, per BLP, material should be deleted because the wording in less than perfect? If the wording upsets you, fix it. That's simple enough. As for your assertion that Brayton isn't an expert source (as per the acceptability of bloggers of sources), you need to explain the basis for your belief - what is the basis for your belief that that ScienceBlogs isn't a reliable source? What is the basis for your assertion that Seeds magazine hires ignorant columnists? Guettarda 07:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Per BLP, it should be removed if it isn't fixed. So fix it or remove it. As for Brayton being an expert on Benny Hinn, you haven't presented anything. And yet again, on a biography page, the onus is on the person who wants to include information to make it acceptable. The wording is not "imperfect," it is so far out that it cannot and must not continue to exist in the article space. --Steven Fisher 07:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's the deal Guettarda - if we were talking about toothpaste, NPOV would be just fine, but since this is BLP -- a biography of a living person, the standard is higher, due to the potential for libel suits. Balance isn't enough. It's like if someone did a bio for George W. Bush, and it included a line that said, "Blogger John Smith from Johnstown, PA says that Bush is a jerk." It's a question of relevance.

[edit] Controversies and Critics section - neutrality

This subject is an effort to centralize debate about neutrality in this section. Here goes:

The section should remain as it stands as of 12/28/2006. It makes clear that there is a lot of controversy surrounding Hinn without endorsing it. The level of detail is consistent with the high degree of scrutiny that Hinn is under because of his success as a televangelist.

I do question the relevance of the reference to the band Our Lady of Peace -- this should be removed. Robko626 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The bloggers comment still needs to be struck. Imagine, for instance, someone attaching a "A number of bloggers think Jim Carey unfunny" to the Jim Cary article. Irrelevant, non-notable, and probably easily reworded and cited with reliable sources. But until it is, per BLP, it should be aggressively deleted. --Steven Fisher 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Somehow lost the OLP comment there. If the song were more recent, I'd be inclined to keep it, but I think history has already judged it as irrelevant. --Steven Fisher 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think my main concern with the section as it stands now is weasel words. It says a few times "Hinn is criticized..." rather than "Joe Blogger has said that..." or whatever. This affects the clarity of the section as well as NPOV issues. — jammycakes (t) 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody removed the whole section. While some of the statements they removed were from verifiable, reliable sources, I'd agree that there was still too much soapboxing and it was still pretty untidy. I've put back the key points but I've left them in the ministry and theology section. I think whichever way it goes, we need to make sure that what we say is to the point, no longer than necessary, and backed up by reliable sources. I've also removed the Our Lady of Peace stuff because it's unencyclopedic and just clutters up the article. — jammycakes (t) 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to work to restore some kind of Controversies/Critics section ASAP. Frankly I can't believe that a millionaire con man who touches foreheads and has people convulse on the floor has this flattering an article. KyuzoGator 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Can we keep an eye on the external links section please? Some of the links that have been inserted during my wikibreak are off-topic, having little to do with Benny Hinn himself. In particular, the "Benny: tongues have ceased" is cessationist POV-pushing and has little to do with Hinn other than having his picture at the top. I think that the "critical"/"supportive" titles are also a bit dubious from an NPOV perspective. I'm going to remove the off-topic ones and the titles but I think a discussion on which other ones to include/exclude would be worthwhile. — jammycakes 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any Documented Proof That Hinn has Healed Anyone?

I think it would be a relevant and NPOV point to put in this article. I'll admit that I am not neutral in my opinion of this man, but he has made his lavish living on claims that he has healed and cured thousands. All I want to see is some shred of proof. KyuzoGator 20:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source claiming that there is no documented evidence? Otherwise, I'm afraid it sounds unverified. Phiwum 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've got the burden of proof backwards. You don't have to produce evidence to prove an absence of evidence. It's the Hinn supporters who carry the burden. KyuzoGator 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the burden of proof. This is an encyclopedia article that must be written according to wikipedia principles, including that its contents should be verifiable and not original research. It is not part of a debate on Hinn's faith healing claims. So, I say it again: if we have an existing reliable source that argues there is no proof Hinn has healed anyone, then we can mention this claim (with citation) in the article. If not, then we cannot. Phiwum 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so using that argument, let me present a scenario. Let's say that I am a "notable" person with a Wikipedia article about me. In that article, there is a quote in which I state that I can fire lightning from my fingers and move objects with my mind. However, there is no documented evidence anywhere that I can do these things.
In order for the article to refute my claims of supernatural powers, the article needs to cite someone else's research into the subject? It doesn't seem NPOV at all...the person can make all the outlandish claims in the world and have them in the article, but in order to refute them you have to have cite your sources (even when the claims are ridiculous)?
It really is a "burden of proof" issue, because Hinn claims to do things that are scientifically impossible and he has no evidence to support these abilities. Given the fact that Hinn's claims can't be verified, that should be noted.
The crux of the matter is that I have a serious problem with an encyclopedia lending credence to a fraud who says he can cure AIDS by touching a forehead by calling him a "healer." I know I'm not neutral on this, but the article isn't either. KyuzoGator 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that you don't like it, but you're right. If George W. Bush announces that he can shoot lightning from his fingertips, then Wikipedia can report that (given a reliable citation). If no one announces that Bush has never actually demonstrated this fact, then Wikipedia can't say so. Everyone can edit Wikipedia and so we demand references. Maybe the system isn't perfect, but this demand seems better than the alternative. Phiwum 02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I seem combative here, it just seems a little illogical that you have to produce evidence in order to state that there is no evidence. But I understand Wiki rules on citations and I will respect them. KyuzoGator 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You should be able to simply state "These claims have not been verified" or something along those lines. Charlie Wiederhold 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/n/Talk%7EBenny_Hinn_62c8.html"