Talk:Hobart Freeman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

.

Contents

[edit] Comments on My Corrections

There are a couple of comments that need to be addressed regarding my corrections and why they need to stop being reversed by the "editors."

1.) One can dispute whether or not the teachings of Hobart Freeman were anointed or not. That depends on whether one was set free by the word of God that was preached there. Did the man preach the word of God? Many seem to think that it was his "opinions" or "his twist of scripture" that he preached. But many have been set free from bondages by the word of God though this man of God. The anointing breaks the yoke of bondage and so the anointing is on the word. Hobart Freeman was just a vessel used by God, just like any other minister of the gospel. Since he preached the word and that is all you get on the tapes, the tapes are anointed. Period.

2.) Another correction that needs to be made is the fact that the article says that some have still held fast to the teaching of Hobart Freeman. Well, since Hobart preached the word, the word is what some have held on to. Those ministers who once were part of Faith Assembly have left and have gone under a word where they are not challenged, or have gone in deception, such as the Laughing Revival, for instance. Some have gone into sin. Some have gone back into their denomonations and their creeds. So yes, they have left the word, so to speak. They are no longer faithful to the word of God. And hence, the need for the change.

3.) Finally, the comment that Hobart Freeman has this cliche stating "What I confess, I possess" was erroneously footnoted (footnote 7) that the comment was mentioned on tape number 115 "Healing in the Atonement." I have listened to the tape twice to hear the comment and no such comment has ever been made on that tape. Please correct this error to reflect the correct reference.

You say that my corrections do not show neutrality (such as the use of the word "anointed" when referring to the tapes. Well, all I can say is that to me, the article does not show neutrality as it was written as it showed the Hobart Freeman was a false teacher and one that was responsible for the deaths of some in his congregation. How do you know that it was his fault for the deaths. How do you know if it wasn't the membership's fault. Read the Tomax site again and you will see that there is more to it that meets the eye. I know a whole lot more than you will ever know about what happened there as I read things from other former members. I don't have all the answers but I do know more than you. So if you want a more neutral article, then stop changing my corrections, please.

Like the other errors that were made, (incorrect book references, comments,) I feel that an outsider like yourself should not think that you are an expert on all matters pertaining to Faith Assembly or Hobart Freeman. If you want to write about an article, your facts must be correct. They have been weighed and found wanting and therefore, this article, as well as this website, is very lacking in authoratative information but is simply surmising just to put a true man of God down. But that is fine. The world and the church have been doing that for years anyway. But God will vindicate His servant and the word that was preached, in spite of the contrary.

Now please make the proper corrections or else this article will be shown incorrect to the editors.

Thank you.

[edit] Comments on Comments

The continued insertion of "anointed" and replacement of the "teachings of Hobart Freeman" with "the Word of God" ARE subjective assertions out of place in an encyclopedia and will continue to be reverted whenever they are made. Any correction of fact or citation will be and has been accepted. Accurate citations for the four points in the healing doctrine are especially wanted. If they aren't forthcoming these points will eventually be deleted as unsubstantiated.

Finally threatening to show this article to the editors is most silly. If you think it really is that inaccurate then don't threaten, do it.


[edit] Recent edit...

To the recent editor: I was amazed at the quality that you added to the article...the additional sources and corrections will be valuable to future researchers.

BUT...If I may speak frankly, WTF re: the bottom-most edit. Reverting that. I'm sure that we can agree that the POV there is not N.

[edit] Response to Recent edit...

I was trying to introduce a reasonable form of words that would not offend the fellow who keeps on inserting "annointed" and "word of God" yet be reasonably neutral and evidence-based. However your removal of the edit you refered to proves that I was unsuccessful and that it should be left as is until, or unless, something better can be suggested.


[edit] Removing point-of-view statements

After watching the recent series of edits and the comments on this talk page, I have made some changes to the article as follows:

  • I removed the references to "anointed" and to Freeman's recovery because he was healed directly by God. Being healed directly by God may or may not be true but it is unencyclopedic because it states as fact something that must be taken on faith. This is in line with WP:NPOV which indicates that articles must be written in a style free from bias for or against any particular relgion , belief or faith. This includes articles on religious subjects such as this one;
  • I shortened the 'controversy' section by removing some unnecessary detail and the 'rumour has it' statements. This is not to imply that these things are unimportant or inaccurate, but the length of the section is out of proportion to the overall article. WP:WEIGHT is relevant here. Freeman has his supporters and opponents and the controversy section should be in proportion to the rest of the article.

Three other important points:

  • Please sign your posts on this page, and please use edit sumamries when making edits on the article;
  • As this article excites strong views on both sides, could I suggest that any major changes (like the ones I just did) get discussed here so the reasoning behind them can be explained?
  • User:71.243.21.111 - please do not edit other's talk page posts like you did here. This is vandalism. If repeated will get you blocked from editing. Euryalus 11:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for the Glory Barn fire

I have amended the article re the above, because:

  • One "source" appeared to be a reference to an earlier version of this page, from January 2007. This breaches both WP:OR and WP:V. Unless you can find a reliable third-party source for Ms Wahl's (nee Nusbaum's) comments, they cannot be included in this article.
  • The other source is valid, but does not say that the fire was started by enemies of the Assembly, only that it was of "suspicious origin". It also states that "brandon" Wahl carried the boys to sdafety, not "brendan" as the article said. This could be a typo by the newspaper but I have corrected it anyway.

As with my post above, could I please ask that people sign their posts and use edit summaries, as it is much easier to follow the changes that way. Thanks. Euryalus 00:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for using edit sumamries - it makes it much easier. Thanks also for your other recent edits, especially the "claimed" the healing one. You're right, my edit had obscured the meaing there.
Two things:
  • The McLaughlin email is original research. I don't doubt that it exists, or that it says what you say it does. But unless or until it is published in a verifiable third-party source, it cannot be used in this article. It also doesn't add much to the article, so removing it does no real harm to a readr's understanding of the issues.
  • I have read the comments by User:Pnusbaum and don't doubt them either, but this is an even more direct example of original research. A comment from a Wikipedia editor is not a reliable source - anyone could set up an account named "Pnusbaum" and make the claim this editor has. If Peggy Wahl was involved in the rescue, this would add something to the aticle so I have left it in with a tag requesting someone find a source for the claim. Please don't just repost the reference to a Wikipedia page - this needs an actual reliable third-party source as well. Euryalus 10:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I have to say that I'm amazed by the amount of work that's been done on the article this past week...202.55.158.136 's meticulous sourcing and Euryalus's encyclopedic eye have (hopefully) given the article a new chance at escaping 'B' status. Thanks for the hard work guys...

72.86.96.17 22:00-ish, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you but all I have done is copyedit. The really valuable job is the referencing, which is essential for a good article but generally long and tedious work. So, congratulations to the anon IP who added all the external links.
On a related point, can anyone find a photo of Hobart Freeman which is not "Fair Use"? I am concerned that the day will come when the one we have in the article gets removed because fair use photos cannot be used for illustration and must be a subject of discussion in the text. Euryalus 10:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Recent edits

Additional photos of Hobart Freeman are available from the article [Freeman: Mystic, Monk or Minister] by John J. Davis, Times-Union Warsaw IN 1983. However I am not sure whether their usage is acceptable to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.158.136 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page comments

An anonymous IP has removed a number of references to an individual from this talk page. This is probably appropriate as they appear to have been personal attacks.

However they also removed a warning not to edit other people's posts, following an earlier modification of a comment so that it said the opposite of what its author intended. I have restored this warning, as no individual is named in it and editing other's posts in this manner is vandalism. Euryalus 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of two recent edits

An anon IP recently made three changes to the article. After some consideration I have removed two of them as follows:

  • Removing a link overcomersonline from the "sources" section. The link is to a web forum. It was clearly not used as a source for the article text as it is newly established and the article was written prior to its inception. Also, a web forum is not a reliable source (see WP:RS for details of acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles)
  • Removing a rewording of the sentence referring to the fire at the Glory Barn. The rewording made it sound as if the fire brigades were subsequently investigated by law enforcement rather than the fire itself. I'm sure this was unintentional but I have restored the earlier wording which was clearer.

Any comments welcome. However please do not simply reinsert the removed material without discussion. Euryalus (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:HobartFreeman.jpg

Image:HobartFreeman.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done 202.55.158.136 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)