Talk:City Harvest Church/Archive 3

Carddard's addition
Carddard's addition appears to be from the Straits Times' "Life!" supplement, so it is a reliable source. However, quoting it wholesale is obviously a copyright violation. Jpatokal (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The same text was added once more. Again, the content needs to be summarized, not copy-pasted wholesale. Jpatokal (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone check the links for this webpage? Many of them do not seem to be working. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.24.174 (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Benny Hinn
CHC hosting Benny Hinn on a number of occasions may be mildly notable, but AFAIK the two have no other relationship and eg. Hinn's wife divorcing him is completely offtopic for an article about CHC. Jpatokal (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

...................................................................................................

Ahnan & anyone, I suggest that the controversial article about the association between CHC and Benny Hinn needs to be written correctly and relevantly. Last time, a few articles against Benny Hinn were irrelevant but yet they were claimed to be "mixed with CHC". These articles such as "Ministry Watch scrutinizing Benny Hinn", "Do You Believe in Miracles show", "Benny Hinn sending to mailers" & "Benny Hinn's divorce" are not on topic of CHC wikipedia page. Unless these articles are truly involved with both CHC and Benny Hinn, they should be added in Benny Hinn's wikipedia page. They should be separated. Kimberry352 (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to show that Benny Hinn is a controversial figure himself and that CHC is using such controversial person to speak and raise fund in CHC services. The Public have the right to know. It's no use trying to cover up this fact. Are you saying that CHC never works with Benny Hinn, Kimberry? Ahnan (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --> Ahnan, I didn't know about how much CHC uses the measure to show its adoration to Benny. I don't hear how many times/often CHC mentioned him during its services including raise funding. It's just a complicated conjecture.Kimberry352 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fact of the matter is, CHC hosted Benny Hinn a few times as a "special" guest to CHC service. This fact has to be disclosed. Ahnan (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay Ahnan. How often did CHC 'use' Benny Hinn to raise funding? What is the funding purpose? Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * U tell me... you attend CHC... I don't... I only pick up such news from CHC website. Perhaps there were times when Benny Hinn came to CHC and was not reported by CHC... Ahnan (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it okay to copy certain paragraph ( articles dated on Apr 2001 (HBO "A Question of Miracles" show), Mar 2005 (Ministry Watch), Nov/Dec 2006 (BHM; CBC TV) ) from Benny Hinn's wiki page to CHC's wiki page? These articles have nothing to do with CHC.
 * Whatever it is, it's impt to show that Benny Hinn is a controversial character and that CHC is associating itself with such a character, using him on a number of occasion for CHC service. Pls do not try to hide this fact from the public! Ahnan (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that I try to hide 'this' fact from the public? I think i have no choice but to label it as offtopic. Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * well, didn't you try to delete the whole chunk of info from CHC article without consultation or explanation at first? That was when I warned you before you stopped it. Ahnan (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that certain article dated on Feb 2010 (Benny Hinn's divorce) is not found in Benny Hinn's wiki page but added in CHC's wiki page only. Regarding Benny Hinn's divorce, it is not relevant to CHC page as it does matter to Benny Hinn's page itself. I wonder why the Feb 2010 article is not mentioned in Benny Hinn's wiki page but CHC's wiki page only.
 * Are you pretending to be blind? It's there on Benny Hinn's page. In any case, here's the ref - http://cbs2.com/local/benny.hinn.televangelist.2.1503860.html. The objective of mentioning that Benny Hinn's wife is divorcing this "great" pastor is to show how controversial Benny Hinn is. And yet, CHC adores him and uses him... like the old saying, Birds of the same feather flocks together.... of course, we won't say that in the main article :) Ahnan (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --> See my answer after your reply belowKimberry352 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. CHC does not adore Benny Hinn. But CHC has invited him over a few times as guest speaker. Obviously, Kong Hee must be pretty impressed with Benny Hinn to have asked him to come back a few times. Ahnan (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oic.. No commentKimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I know that the irrelevant plagiarised articles have to be revealed in the controversial section of CHC wiki page because of CHC's link with Benny Hinn. Who copied these articles (except Feb 2010) from Benny Hinn's to CHC's wiki page? (I wonder if it was first done by Ahnan.)
 * Yes, I did it. Can't you read the History section to find out? Are you pretend to be blind again? By the way, I know you are a CHC member but you have been refusing to reveal this fact cause you didn't want people to accuse you being bias to "protect" the sanctity of CHC article? What's the matter? Pastor Kong has to be portrayed as the "perfect" guy to the publc? Ahnan (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --> I don't say that everyone like Pastor Kong is perfect. Like them, churches, temples and mosques are not perfect even although foolish people are waiting for perfect conditions for long time. Yes, sorry I didn't notice it. Just now I found out that the article added in Benny Hinn's wiki page about his wife's divorce was timed and dated on 06:13, 19 February 2010 respectively. But yet this article was excluded from CHC so it is supposed not to be in CHC's wiki page (I know you want to publicise it in this church page although it is irrelevant to CHC). Kimberry352 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CHC is associating itself with a questionable divorced preacher who doesn't even follow the Bible teachings! Didn't the bible said, "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."? So again, we must let the public know that Kong Hee likes to associate himself with this kind of people. Ahnan (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking why Benny's divorce was allowed in the imperfect world although the Bible says no divorce (like what God has joined togehter, no one is allowed to separate. ** Is it true that Kong Hee likes to associate himself with this kind of people?Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Kong Hee has invited him over for a few times, right? Obviously, Kong Hee must have liked him a lot to repeatedly invite him over to Singapore! Ahnan (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I beg to differ...these offtopic articles have nothing to do with CHC. If plagiarised articles are looked over, the same information from both wiki pages may change differently as time passes. Maybe the Benny Hinn's link should be added below the controversial article. Kimberry352 (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that either a wiki link to Benny Hinn page will do and only relevant controversial points to be be made will do. I saw the "conversation" on your talk page and I feel that Ahnan is going overboard. I am for the idea of deleting the whole Benny Hinn section or at the most keep a small paragraph relating their relationship. However there is nothing controversial or noteworthy about the relationship. oops. forgot to sign off again --Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Xaiver0510, I'm not going overboard. I just want to make sure that the public see the other side of the story of CHC. Kimberry here clearly is a CHC member "disgusing" as a ordinary member of the public. Hence, my crossing swords with him or her. Whatever it is, it's imperative that people reading the CHC article alone should know that they are associating themselves with a controversial character, Benny Hinn. Ahnan (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

...............................................................
 * ** Ahnan, what is the definition of the word 'disguising'?
 * What's the problem with you? I'm asking you a simple question if you are a CHC member or not? If you are, then answer YES. If not, answer NO. Why is it so difficult for you to answer? Ahnan (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Originally I checked CHC wiki page when I was bored or had free. Now I think I should leave my Wiki account behind. It's complicated for me to decide whether i'm CHC member or CHC attendee. Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it's not complicated enough for you to decide to edit CHC article here and to defend CHC? Ahnan (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the right time and right place to defend CHC? I think the meaning of the word "defend" is different from another word "adovcate". I don't mean to adovcate for CHC but what I feel if the information is indeed relevant, then there will be no point of defending it. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) PS: Now I thought I really wanted to quit Wikipedia account as I realised that I 'am' being "wordily nagged" by the same person, Ahnan. I don't know why he recently replied to me a lot but I try to get used to it. Moreover, I've already reverted the deleted controversial irrelevant paralgarised articles manually before certain Wiki users edited them lately. Btw,I know Wikipedia is more open to all users so they can edit Wiki articles anywhere and anytime compared to more reliable web based encyolopedia such as Factiva. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw, I really don't mean to fight with you over the 'edit war' on Wikipedia. I know that it should be right to let the public know the controversial articles about CHC like Benny Hinn, Sun Ho, $310m Suntec investment, etc. Some people like you are more lucky to have computer with internet access so that they can use the internet for freedom.
 * 99% of households in Singapore have got internet access. What do you mean "lucky"? What are you trying to say here? Ahnan (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 99% is accurate, isn't it? "Lucky" is like people are fortunate to use computer for different purpose. Hm..Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Er... and your point being? What has this got to do with CHC's controversy? Ahnan (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * trivial matter. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However, if the freedom of the internet is abused, then sadly many people may like to speculate what something has been happened and will be going to happen (e.g. MM Lee's heart attack was a hoax recently (Mar 2010) ).
 * Have I been abusing the CHC article? Have I been speculating about CHC happenings? All the stuff I've written is backed up by FACTS! Are you saying that what I've added to CHC article is a "hoax"? This is a very serious allegation and I deem this an attack on my personal integrity. you had better apologize !!!!Ahnan (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sighs... My apology..Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ok then Ahnan (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ** Ahnan, 5Proof & other ppl. It is true that it's inevitable that people or the public want to know about the controversial character Benny Hinn's association with CHC. Yes, actually I'm a CHC attendee who also visits other churches like FCBC, VFC and NCC. As a Wikipedia user, I'm trying to be common with relevant and verified sources if I've got time. Ahnan, if I'm not wrong, you are also another member of the public who wants to 'slap' the CHC in writing by adding 'irrelevant' and 'offtopic' articles about the association between CHC and Benny Hinn.
 * You mean by attempting to reveal the truth of CHC's association with Benny Hinn, I'm "slapping" CHC? How can it be irrelevant when CHC is found to be associating itself with a controversial guy like Benny Hinn? You know in law, if you are associating yourself, say, with an illegal fugitive, you can be prosecuted for that association. That is, the law deemed you to be harbouring a criminal! Ahnan (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "slapping" CHC as in exposing CHC with irrelevant, relevant wrong, right, true or false evidences. As for the imagaination imagaination of associating with myself, i don't have a position to comment it.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't agree with you. CHC's association with such a controversial person as Benny Hinn is impt enough to be let known to the public. Public members are being "pulled" by CHC members to join its church and to contribute money. Public members have the right to know such "controversial" association. Ahnan (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. If I'm not wrong, this incident (about Benny calling the congregation to contribute $1,500 each person if desired voluntarily) took place during the Asia Conference 2008. If necessarily, u need to back up this incident with verificable source -- because it is relevant. I could not find any reliable source on internet (besides people's 'opinionated' blog). Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CHC own newsletter revealed this. Go check it out. Ahnan (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahnan, can you please list the source of this newsletter acccurately? Citation? Is it in form of CityNews newsletter?Kimberry352 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * here: http://www.chc.org.sg/citynews/index.php?m=200811&paged=2 Ahnan (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Refer to the source title "Session 8: A time to rise up" at http://www.citynews.sg/index.php/2008/11/session-8-a-time-to-rise-up/? How far can you accept this source as evidence for your stand? This source seems to be more like reports of miracles and free-debt.Kimberry352 (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The part about Benny Hinn asking each attendee to give $1500 is not inside this CHC wiki entry. What are you crowing about? Ahnan (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, so do you know what is the stand of this source "Session 8: A time to rise up" (dated on Nov 2008)? We need to complete the 'whole jigsaw puzzles' for relevant matters. Do you know where this source comes from? CityNews, right? So what is the general stand (base) of CityNews? According to the post from Tomorrow.sg blog website [], I know that some Singaporeans (whether bloggers or non-bloggers & CHC Christians or non-CHC Christians) were are unhappy with Benny Hinn's upcoming invitational visit to Singapore (as of July 2008). Perhaps another source (post from Tomorrow.sg which is more like opinion blog) [] forsaw the implications of Benny Hinn's invitational visit to CHC Singapore (as of July 2008). It may be possibly supported by alternative source from TNP dated on 10 Oct 2008 [] (same as []) because based on TNP articles, these Singaporeans expressed their concerns about the controversies about Benny Hinn. So yes, these 3 sources have relationship between CHC and Benny Hinn although the CityNews article called "Session 8: A time to rise up" has reported an atomsphere of praise and healing and an absence of critisim against Benny Hinn whereas the Tommorrow.sg post named "The dangers of blind faith: Is City Harvest Church encouraging fraud?" is the opinion from the blogger named e-Hung [] (this post later deleted from his original blog?). TNP article "Visit by hotshot US reverend draws flak on the Net" has a strong stand for the controversial invitation of Benny Hinn to CHC. Kimberry352 (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I began to see the light that you are really bold enough to do whatever you want to add controversial content - why only controversial content?
 * If you were to write relevant and ontopic controversial content, I would not mind it as long as it is logical and reasonable. Ok, I'm alright with the controversial articles like $310 million Suntec investment as long as its contents are relevant. If these articles of Benny Hinn exclude CHC, then they are irrelevant to CHC's page and they should be added in Benny's wiki page instead.
 * I've already explained to you a zillion times. We need to explain why Benny Hinn is a controversial figure cause 99% of Singaporeans don't even know who he is or why the association of CHC with Benny Hinn is deemed controversial. Hence, some elaborations are required. Ahnan (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. true.. But I'm concerned that if other churches like NCC and FCBC invite Benny Hinn, then who will like to criticize them the way CHC has been criticized whether it is ontopic or offtopic?Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, if other churches also invite Benny Hinn to their services, pls inform me, I will make sure such controversial associations are highlighted. As far as I know, currently Benn Hinn seems to be only associating with CHC in Singapore. Ahnan (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay..Perhaps.. but yet I'm still thinking if I consider to quit Wikipedia. No matter when the new controversial, inaccurate or vandlised content appears in some wiki pages like CHC's page, I wish I would not see or touch any more disputes in future if I could be given an option to delete my wiki account. (just trivial matter)Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you want to quit wiki or not, that's your own business. I couldn't care less. My business is to ensure that the controversial part of CHC is accurately portrayed and published in wiki for the public to see and to note. The individual public member can then decide if CHC is for them. If after reading the controversial section of CHC, for example, and they still want to attend some of the future Benny Hinn miracle healing sessions hosted by CHC so as to allow this controversial guy to screw themselves, then so be it. At least I've done my part in the public interest. Ahnan (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you 'force' me not to delete the irrelevant paralagrised content, I see my Wiki account might be no longer of good function/use for me to do. Instead, it consumed my time and energy a lot as we (Ahnan & kimberry352) replied a lot compared to other recent editors having web based conversation with u (Ahnan).
 * Why not? If the controversy is a fact, then it should be revealed Ahnan (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, based on source-based case study, it should be revealed if it is a fact and relevant to the topic. If the controversy was later discovered as a hoax or speculation, would it be accepted as a truth and be revealed? If the controversy is a fact but it is irrelevant to the topic (e.g. Can both the wiki page 'Pig (Animal)' and the other wiki page 'The Three Little Pigs (Childrens' Story)' be relevant to each other?, would it be right?Kimberry352 (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence, I'm putting the controvery into CHC wiki entry so as to be revealed to the public. Ahnan (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay if relevant and reliable sources display that the controversy has a relationship between CHC and Benny Hinn.Kimberry352 (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How about church controversial issues like Church of Our Saviour Singapore's AWARE takeover controversy? How about non-church controversial issues such as DBS High Note/Minibond Saga, HDB and Private housing rising prices & recently former Romanian Ambassador Dr Ionescu's hit and run car accident? Based on your edit history (up to 12 April 2010; 12am Singapore Time), mostly you focused on the criticism against church issues and other peoples' relationship(association) with church. If I'm not wrong, I can remember that your objective is to show the 'truth' to the public who wants to know the negatives side of the entities (churches & peoples' relationship with churches).Kimberry352 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please lah, I'm only 1 person with 2 hands and I've got to help moderate 3in1kopitiam also. Hence, I do it when there is a keen public interest in a certain matter. With regard to AWARE incident, I believe someone else was writing the controversy so hence, I didn't join in. Ahnan (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just now i realised that you 'recently' revealed the 'controversial truths' in non-church pages like Lim Biow Chuan. So my apology. No further comment here. Kimberry352 (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See? Next time, look carefully before you shoot Ahnan (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, i will be more careful. Recently you did few editing for non-church controversial issues like Lim Biow Chuan (besides Thio Li-ann topic last July according to ur edit history) - Just trivial matter. Kimberry352 (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ** Speaking honestly, I am so surprised and don't know about Benny's wife's divorce that was added in CHC's wiki page recently. Again, the article about his wife's divorce is not relevant to CHC as it was excluded from CHC. What is Ahnan's motive of adding offtopic articles like this divorce in CHC's wiki page?
 * Already explained. CHC is associating itself with a divorced preacher who doesn't practise what the bible said. This fact has to be let known to the public so that the next time CHC invites Benny Hinn to CHC service again, people will know that CHC is inviting a controversial divorced pastor to CHC to preach. Ahnan (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ic. No comment. I am not certain whether CHC didn't mind Benny's divorce. Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ** Before some of the controversial articles (except the article dated Feb 2010 about Benny's wife's divorce) about Benny Hinn were removed, they were copied from Benny's wiki page and pasted into CHC's wiki page at first(earliest edited time of CHC's wiki page: 00:25, 5 April 2010). It was same as plagiarising certain paragraphs from one wiki page(Benny Hinn) to another wiki page(CHC) although these articles from Benny's wiki page were excluded from CHC (In other words, they are irrelevant & offtopic). (I understand why Ahnan wants the public to know the controversial association between CHC and Benny. Yes, he admitted that he was the 1st person who copied these articles from Benny's wiki page and pasted them into CHC's wiki page although they are excluded from CHC.) These articles that were later removed from CHC's wiki page by someone(latest edited time of CHC's wiki page: 17:06, 8 April 2010).
 * My intention is to reveal the controversy surrounding Benny Hinn and to help readers understand why CHC's association or continued "endorsement" of Benny Hinn reflects badly on CHC itself Ahnan (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you intend to reveal offtopic controversial articles about Benny, maybe the Benny's wiki page's hyperlink should be added under the Benny's controversial section. If ontopic & relevant, it is right for the public to know what happens between CHC and him.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ** Last, I really feel 'threatened' by Ahnan. After he wrote on my talk page 'threatening' me, I might not dare to delete the 'plagiarised' irrelevant articles. I know Ahnan wants to publicize them to the people. Ahnan, i feel as if you are trying to 'attack' me but not other recent editors who removed the same articles? Just now I realised that you also warned recent editors who removed the same articles. I emphasize that these articles are offtopic because they are excluded from CHC. If confirmed that these articles are included in CHC, then I won't be in position to object it. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Threatening you? HAHAHAHAH! Folks, let me quote the message I wrote to Kimberry352: Stop deleting negatives of CHC... or else I'm going to complain to the mods here and have the CHC page put under moderation. I've known all along that Kimberry352 is a member of CHC. After much questioning, he or she has finally revealed that he or she is indeed a member (see above). Under wiki rules, he or she should never delete large chunk of stuff off without informing the writer or giving a reason. Is my statement threatening? I will leave it to the good people here to decide. Ahnan (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disappointed. Negatives of CHC which are not relevant to Benny Hinn based on how mutually inclusive both CHC and he are. If they are mutually inclusive, I am okay. Certain controversial articles like Benny's divorce clearly show that it excludes CHC so they should not be accepted into CHC's wiki page. Other controversial articles like Benny's call to raise funding at CHC are supposed to be added into CHC's wiki page.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, Kimberry352, are you threatening me too? You said to me on your talk page: I was thinking of making a complaint against you; however I could not do that as I am not familar with ways of how to make a report to Wikipedia moderator. HAHA! Ahnan (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disappointed again. Communicating over internet without face to face communication may be hard to describe what we can talk and feel. Ahnan, I'm thinking we should meet up face to face. Pls see your own wiki's page.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

...................................................................................................

Folks, I just want to highlight the fact here that Kimberry352 is a member of the City Harvest Church (CHC). He or she has admitted as such after much cross examination (see above). Please take note all.Ahnan (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * > maybe true but I am yet to decided if I'm CHC attendee or member. I also attend FCBC alternately weekly. For your info, I consider to leave CHC only if it preaches false doctrines and there is no effort for me to raise issues.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fact is, even as a "partial" attendee of CHC, you feel enough for CHC to come out here to defend it. You didn't disclose your link to CHC until now after being cross examined here. And now, you are trying to back out by saying you "haven't" decided if you are going to be a member of CHC or not. Hence, attempting to show that there is no COI afterall. Aren't you like that disciple of Jesus whom when asked about his association with Jesus when Jesus was caught by the Roman soldiers, he denied so? HAHA!Ahnan (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if I'm from CHC or not, I still observe around CHC. I went to Asia Conference 2008 where Benny Hinn came to preach about healing. Btw, like what i said just now, the controversial articles about Benny were already reverted manually before they were edited lately. It's ur choice to edit them. I might not dare to make them correct again.Kimberry352 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

--> Ahana asked: "Aren't you like that disciple of Jesus whom when asked about his association with Jesus when Jesus was caught by the Roman soldiers, he denied so?" -- Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you pls clarify it (make it easier to understand)? Sorry.Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nevermind Ahnan (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

...................................................................................................

We don't need to go into details about Benny Hinn but if the church has associated itself with Benny in the past and this can be substantiated, it will be worthwhile adding to the contents details of the association. As much as members of the church may not want this association to be known, it is in the interest of the general public to know about the associations of the church. Please also note that the page is not meant to be used as a marketing tool of the church. It should provide substantiated facts about the church and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.43.58.221 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bro, all the substantiations are there (check the refs). I stand by what I wrote. I too feel that the public should know about this, especially the Singapore public. Many don't know who is Benny Hinn and what is so controversial about him. Many think that Benny Hinn is some great foreign pastor from the west. This view has to be corrected. Folks, I'm not associated with CHC in any way. Just a member of the public who wish to see justice done for presenting a fair view to the public about CHC article.Ahnan (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

...................................................

Hey, I'm feeling being forced by a well-known person to respect what he has done -- adding irrelevant offtopic articles about Benny Hinn into CHC's wiki page. These articles ( articles dated on Apr 2001 (HBO "A Question of Miracles" show), Mar 2005 (Ministry Watch), Nov/Dec 2006 (BHM; CBC TV), Feb 2010 (Benny Hinn's wife's divorce) ) exclude from CHC. I know that he wants to raise awareness about the plight of CHC's association with Benny. Putting differently, it is said that some of the public do not know about Benny or his association with CHC very well. I think that if you guys feel that these articles should be added into CHC's wiki page, it's okay now...but there is a need to edit them so that they will be more relevant and be up to the point. Otherwise, just add the hyperlink of Benny Hinn's wiki page to take the people from CHC's wiki page to Benny's wiki page for more controversial articles. What do you think?Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As re-itterated above, there's already a link to Benny Hinn in the main article. Adding the so much detail from that article here is redundant, so a summary suffices. Also, as far as the parts about his finances, it is irrelevant to the article unless he has a hand in the financial dealings of the church in question (If so please provide references). Ahnan's desire to "reveal the truth" is commendable, but only to the extent of keeping it tightly relevant to the article. Do not needlessly bloat the article.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the article shows (1) CHC's association with the controversial faith healer Benny Hinn is recorded and (2) a description to tell the public why Hinn was controversial in the firs place to supplement point (1), then I'm ok. Without (2) and just merely mentioning (1), readers could be wondering what's the fuss about Ahnan (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which article is mentioned specifically?Kimberry352 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Benny Hinn officially a member/pastor of this church? If not I'm not sure I see the relevance of putting him in the article. I'm sure he preaches/has preached at a lot of churches so what's significant about this one? But even if we leave in the part that he's preached at this church, the section about his troubles is completely irrelevant and needs to be removed. That belongs on his page not here. SQGibbon (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Benny is not a part of CHC. He was invited to CHC as a guest speaker. Btw, I feel that the controversial articles about him [e.g. Apr 2001 (HBO "A Question of Miracles" show), Mar 2005 (Ministry Watch), Nov/Dec 2006 (BHM; CBC TV), Feb 2010 (Benny Hinn's wife's divorce)] are irrelevant to CHC's wiki page. Moreover, these articles are the same as those in Benny Hinn's wiki page. Firstly, if the article were to be relevant to CHC, then this article must include both CHC and Benny (e.g. Benny called the CHC congreation to contribute money during the Asia Conference 2008 -- i am sure that different people have different views about this incident.) and thus it is okay to add this article in CHC's page. Secondly, if the article were to be offtopic (irrelevant to CHC), then it should talk about Benny only (not CHC) -- (e.g Benny's wife divorce in Feb 2010) and thus this article should be added in Benny's page only. I think that in case of upcoming serious edit war, then maybe just put Benny Hinn's wiki link under the controversial section of CHC wiki page. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, different articles have the same controversial character, Benny Hinn. However, they have (1) different roles/purposes and (2) have zero or one or more relationship with different entities (e.g. CHC, etc..). If the article has 'zero relationship', then it deems that it has nothing to do with CHC (e.g. Benny's wife divorce in Feb 2010). 'Zero relationship' means absence of relationship between two or more selective entities. I know that Ahnan emphasize the 'need' (or 'must'??) to let the public know what's the fuss about the controversial CHC's association with Benny. Since I found certain articles** which Ahnan added at first irrelevant, I think that the Wiki readers should click the hyperlink of Benny Hinn's wiki pages for more controversial articles** which are offtopic to CHC. **: Apr 2001 (HBO "A Question of Miracles" show), Mar 2005 (Ministry Watch), Nov/Dec 2006 (BHM; CBC TV), Feb 2010 (Benny Hinn's wife's divorce)Kimberry352 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my reply to Zhanzhao above Ahnan (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahnan, can you pls quote your reply to Zhanzhao?


 * I agree with Ahnan on this point &mdash; we should just remove all of the Benny Hinn stuff. There's no reason for point 1 without point 2 and since there is no reason for point 2 (other than in support of point 1) then we should get rid of all of it. Which means I also agree with Kimberrry352 (as far as I can tell). Is there anything left to do?  Can we just delete that section now? SQGibbon (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of relevance, I think we need to try to get Ahnan's opinion about deleting that section. I'm afraid that Ahnan may not be satifised if the section is deleted without complete negotitation and agreement. Hm.. Kimberry352 (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was being facetious saying that Ahnan and I were in agreement about deleting the entire Benny Hinn section. However I am serious that it is clearly not relevant and needs to go.  At least two editors who otherwise have nothing to do with this article have now weighed in and we've reached that same conclusion.  If we have to seek out more neutral editors I am confident that they will all agree.  I'll give it a day or so but unless Ahnan and his meatpuppets come up with some new evidence I'm going to delete it.  If they challenge that then we'll go through the normal channels for dispute resolution. This is clearly a violation of coatrack (which though not official policy is widely accepted).  SQGibbon (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go with Zhanzhao's suggestion, some summary of Benny Hinn controversies to support that fact that he is a controversial guy and that CHC using him to raise funds in some of CHC services is controverial by itself. Ahnan (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[offtopic] Sighs.. recently I am very shocked to discover that Ahnan (Wiki username) 'gossips' to people in online discussion forum called 3in1KOPI -- See it at CHC member wants to meet me f-to-f woh.. I had no idea why. Ahnan who is also kojakbt_89 (3in1KOPI username) of 3in1KOPI forum discussed to these people over the online forum. As for ur info, I posted him [] at his talk page for a face to face meeting for better communication regarding Benny's offtopic and any other business topics. Now, I can't believe that he is more than wagging his tongue & speaking about others and reveal private things (e.g. i will give you my non-personal (or personal) email). I am not sure if he brings his 'puppet(s)' to meet me personally. No boundary knows ages, races, languages and religions. Sighs.. What should I do?=( Kimberry352 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki's entry and talk pages are public anyway. Nothing wrong for people in other forums discussing what's going on in here. In fact, many people on public Singapore forums are pretty fed up with CHC for the way it uses "prosperity gospel" (and in fact, it's the same in the US too) to get funding. Even though it's not against the law, certainly there are ethical issues involved. Why do you think the Senate in the US has investgated many of these Televangelists? Ahnan (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the 3in1 Kopitiam forum thread "CHC member wants to meet me f-to-f woh.." [] was originally used to target only me - Kimberry352. If people on the online 3in1 Kopi forum intentionally hurt me emotionally or say about me sarcastically, it is cyber-bullying. However, I wish I won't comment about this. Nvm...It's not impt here. =( Kimberry352 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

5Proof (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Kimberry352, just because you or your church members don't like bad publicity doesn't make it 'irrelevant'. It might be 'irrelevant' to you and your ink, but it not 'irrelevant' not to the general public which do have the right to know what CHC is all about. Take this advise; trying to censor the truth will not serve anyone any good, including yourselves. 5Proof (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Since Ahnan warned me not to remove the controvesial irrelevant plagiarised articles about CHC's association with Benny Hinn, I don't dare to delete these articles again as I feel 'threatened' by him and we replied a lot that i was really feeling stressed and my time was consumed. As you know what offtopic and ontopic article are meant, I want to stress to explain here again: (1) Firstly, if the controversial articles were to be relevant and ontopic to CHC, then these articles should be revealed in CHC's wiki page. In other words, both CHC and Benny are included in these articles. For examples, Benny Hinn called the CHC congregation to contribute US$1000 or S$1500 during the Asia Conference 2008. I'm certain that different people have different point of views on this incident. As for the individuals' blogs regarding this incident, I think it may not be right to quote the content from the blog about this incident as they are more like opinons of individuals. (2) Secondly, if the controversial articles*** were to be irrelevant and offtopic to CHC but these articles are vertified, then they should be revealed in Benny Hinn's wiki page. It means that Benny is included in these articles but CHC is excluded from these articles. For example, Benny's wife made a divorce in Feb 2010. Since we know that Ahnan is keen to reveal the 'truth' to the public who don't know about Benny Hinn and his controversay, we need to examine the relevance of all (1) and (2) articles. If the articles don't mention about the relationship between CHC and Benny, then it could be possible no. (2) - irrelevant & offtopic article so it should be separated from CHC's wiki page and be added in Benny's wikipage. You can see that certain articles*** added by Ahnan recently (Edit history date & time of CHC's wiki page: 11:06, 5 April 2010) [] and compare them with the same articles (under Controvesary & Personal Life) of Benny's wiki page [] Are these artricles*** paralgised in CHC's wiki page? If there is a need or a must for the public to know about this but these articles*** are irrelevant to CHC, then either they should be removed from CHC's wiki page or they should be edited to make them more relevant and up to the point in CHC's wiki page. Otherwise, the hyperlink of Benny's wikipage should be place under Benny's controversial section of CHC's wiki page. ***: Apr 2001 (HBO "A Question of Miracles" show), Mar 2005 (Ministry Watch), Nov/Dec 2006 (BHM; CBC TV), Feb 2010 (Benny Hinn's wife's divorce) If articles mention about the relationship between CHC and Benny, then it could be possible no. (1) - relevant & ontopic article. Then I am okay that this relevant and vertified controversial articles that mention the relationship between CHC and Benny will be added in the controvesrial section of CHC's wiki page. 5Proof, I stress that I don't mean always hide the truth or speculation from the public. What i feel relevance of the content more matters. Btw, like other ppl said, you also said "you or your church members don't like bad publicity doesn't make it 'irrelevant'. But.. Sighs.. I want to quote "Whether a cat is black or white, it catches the mices as long as it can."Kimberry352 (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 5Proof, pls read throughout all the posts regarding Benny Hinn section here if you have not read all the posts here yet. What do you mean by "you or your church members"? Some CHC members like journalist are more than curious to find out the negative sides of CHC, no doubt. Btw, do you know the difference between irrelevant/offtopic content and relevant/ontopic content? Like I have already explained here and COI page.

(2) Yes, quite okay to get what you mean. The things Benny has done in USA might have no connection to CHC directly but if and only if the things he did in USA did not mention CHC, then it should be directed to Benny's wiki page. The quick description about the controversial character Benny Hinn that you guys want to try to place in CHC's wiki page should be relevant on account of reliable sources such as TNP [] -- you can use it to write if necessarily. Meanwhile, I try to look for other sources that are worthy of notice and relevant to the controversial association between Benny and CHC. hm..Kimberry352 (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are arguing out of point here. The issue here is we need some text or simple descriptions if you like to back up the fact that Benny Hinn is controversial, cause like I've said, just simply mentioning Benny Hinn alone does not say anything. If you go thru wiki entries, you will see some light duplications here and there. The objective is to make the article clearer but giving some explanations to the supporting points of the main article, even though the supporting points could be whole topics by themselves. Hence, it doesn't matter if the supporting points themselves does not contain points of the main article. In our case, we are trying to give a quick description of why Benny Hinn is controversial and obviously, before he came to Singapore, he was already controversial in the US due to some of the things he did before. And obviously, the things he did in the US will have no direct connection to CHC at all, right? But nevertheless, these things make Benny Hinn controversial and depsite the fact that he was already controversial, CHC still went ahead to engage him, hence, making CHC's action controversial. You follow? Is it too complicated for you to understand, Kimberry? Ahnan (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) nevermind if you replied here on the behalf of 5Proof.


 * 5Proof, I see you are apparently a new wiki contribbutor, so it is understandable that you do not really understand what is being debated here. The link to Benny Hinn in the article is sufficent for the purpose of informing wikipedians about the connection between him and the church, if the need even exists (i.e. do we really need to see a whole list and biography of EVERY single guest speaker this church has ever invited to the podium?). However, only information relevant about him in regards to the church should be in this article. I.e. just because the church is situated in Singapore does not mean we need to dump the whole section of Singapore history in this article.Zhanzhao (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Kindly take a sample look at other articles on wikipedia. It's common for articles on any organizations or public figures to come with controversy and criticism sections. CHC members need to stop acting like 'Nazis' here, and delete everything you deem critical.5Proof (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Zhanzhao, I support your initial call to have a summary of Benny Hinn's controversies so as to show that CHC's link to a CONTROVERSIAL "healer" is itself a controversy. 5Proof, agreed with you. No one is perfect. There are bound to be controversies. We should write them down so that people can form their own judgement Ahnan (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like you to point any of these articles out for the benefit of all us wikipedia editors. If an article does exist, where absolutely any type of controversies has been listed wholesale without care as to whether it is DIRECTLY relevant to the article in question, it is clearly a badly written article and needs to be fixed. Thanks in advance for your help in making wikipedia a better site ;) Zhanzhao (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've explained, the issue here is to tell people why Benny Hinn is controversial. If he is not, then CHC's action to invite him is not too. I wouldn't be bothered to write about it in the first place. And so, if we all agreed that Benny Hinn is a controversial figure, at least some brief description is necessary to mention why Benny Hinn is controversial. Such description does not necessary have any Direct relevance to the article since his controversies exist even way before he came to Singapore. Ahnan (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. I agree that it may be OK to point out somewhere in the article that Benny Hinn has spoken at CHC. However, the section as written has two major problems: A) The second half of the section is utterly irrelevant to CHC. I know we have some inexperienced editors who think readers should be informed of who the CHC is really associating with. To those editors, that is your opinion, and not the purpose of an encyclopedia. We do not advocate any point of view, we merely report those that can be backed by a reliable source.

Following that note, we get to problem B) The section as written and placed claims that CHC's decision to host Benny Hinn was "controversial". There are no reliable sources to support this position. Again, to those inexperienced editors, this is your opinion. You are welcome to hold your opinion, but you are not welcome to push it onto the article.

Please read Original research. When you make the statement A and B, therefore C, it is not sufficient to have references for A and B separately. You have to actually have a reference for the entire statement. In this case there are sources that CHC hosted Benny Hinn. There are sources that Benny Hinn is a controversial figure. And to repeat myself, there are no sources that CHC's decision to host Benny Hinn was controversial.

As has been stated already in this section, you are free to climb higher rungs of the dispute resolution ladder to get more opinions on this matter, but this is very cut-and-dry as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * --> looks like we have found C, The New Paper (TNP) article dated on 10 Oct 2008 . Since the newspaper reported that inviting the controversial Benny Hinn by CHC "has stirred strong reaction among netizens", would it not mean that hosting Benny Hinn was controversial? Hence, there is no reason to delete this sectionAhnan (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My two cents: Benny Hinn is undoubtedly a controversial guy in general, and inviting him to Sg caused enough of a flap in the blogosphere (eg. Tomorrow.sg ) to get a mention in The New Paper (Oct 10, 2008) -- which, alas, is not archived online.  That said, 98% of the screed against him is totally offtopic here, so the mention should be limited to the facts -- he was repeatedly invited by CHC, and some Singaporeans weren't happy about it. Jpatokal (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True.. there are different general and specific articles about Benny Hinn. The New Paper (TNP) article dated on 10 Oct 2008 seemed to 'prove' the blog post Tommorrow  as a supporting evidence. The blog post Tommorrow was expressed as a blogger's opinion (blogger named e-Hung from ) However, I feel that this TNP article dated on 10 Oct 2008 made sense that some Singaporeans expressed their concerns about Benny's invitational visit to CHC. This TNP article sounds relevant and if necessarily, quote or summarize relevant statements from this TNP article with the reference in CHC's wiki page. Hm..Kimberry352 (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm.... relating "dislike" to controversy is quite a stretch to pull. Also, yes, Benny Hinnes generally considered "controversial", but thats a very subjective term, and the line was taken in context of the United States. As per my previous edit, I have not problems leaving Hinnes in the article, but I agree with you that it should be limited to his being invited by CHC a number of times (with no need to mention specific dates.... if he gets invited 100 times I don't think anyone wants to see 100 sets of dates here); and mention of the negative response by some of the public. These are the details that directly connect the person with the church and are eligible to be added to the article as per Wiki policy. Anything else should be left to the respective articles.Zhanzhao (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's already mentioned in the article that he was invited. That the "blogosphere" was upset is hardly notable.  That a newspaper article mentioned the controversy might be notable.  But then the entire thing should be phrased something like this : "American televangelist Benny Hinn has been spoken there several times which has caused some controversy" with a link to the newspaper article.  That's all we need. SQGibbon (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me cite an example of the Opus Dei(a Catholic organization) wiki article. Controversy and critics of the organization hold many different views. A sample passage from the controversy section directs criticism on the organization of support and sympathy for war criminals like Adolf Hitler, Augusto Pinochet.. etc. And so the same might be said that these information on that article are 'irrelevant/offtopic', since none of the said people are Opus Dei members. But never the less the info is there for the Wikipedia reader to decide if they agree or not, and not for Opus Dei to censor or sugar-coat what they want the public to know or not. So please do understand that Wikipedia does not exist merely to serve as a free service for your mission statement. It's about information sharing. 5Proof (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly! The Opus Dei article lists the issues just like it should!  But notice what the Catholic Church article says about Opus Dei "He also canonised many saints and made Opus Dei his personal prelature."  That's it.  It does not mention any of the controversies surrounding that group.  No one is advocating censoring Benny Hinn's article what we are saying is that those controversies do no not belong in this article.  But to illustrate further the irrelevance using your example, Opus Dei is part of the Catholic Church but barely receives mention in the article.  Benny Hinn is not a member of CHC so clearly shouldn't receive more than the briefest of mentions. SQGibbon (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the call to give a brief description of Benny Hinn at least telling the readers why this guy is controversial without the need for the readers to click Benny's link to find out more details about him. Ahnan (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm taking a article of a organization like CHC as a apples to apples example. The Catholic Church article is a article on the Catholic Church as a denomination of Christianity just like the Protestant is. Don't try to obfuscate the issue by comparing it to something else.5Proof (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -> Hey 5Proof, may be we should start a new topic altogether, titled "Controversies about City Harvest Church". If you look at Opus Dei, there is a topic solely dedicated to its controversies - Controversies about Opus Dei, HAHA! Ahnan (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * -> That's actually not a bad suggestion. :) 5Proof (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ---> You are welcome to start a new topic/wiki page titled "Controversies about City Harvest Church" and should write down a list of controversies about CHC. But if they have got duplication or affected articles (e.g. Sun Ho, $310m Suntect investment, etc..) of other wiki pages, then I think that this new topic may merge with current wiki page someday. Just my 2cent. Kimberry352 (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * > Do note that even if you guys start up a new topic on this, you will still be unable to avoid the issues listed by the other editors in this discussion. Namely, keeping things relevant and making sure you cite from reliable and relevant sources among otherss. If you do want to start another article, I recommend you go through WP:FIRST, WP:AFC, and WP:INCUBATE. This will save you much grief when you just create an article and it gets RfD for being not fit for Wiki.Zhanzhao (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * > Don't worry. When we are finished with CHC article, we'll do the controversy page for CHC. I've got a lot more controversies to add to CHC... more coming... stay tuned... Ahnan (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, so let's look at the Opus Dei article. What does it say about Hitler?  Where is the same kind of criticism of Hitler that you and Ahnan are wanting to put in the CHC article about Benny Hinn?  It's not there.  Hitler is mentioned briefly and only in relation to what specific members of Opus Dei said about him.  And that's Hitler who is many, many times more notable than Hinn and being associated with Hitler is far more significant than being associated with Hinn.  No matter at what level we look at your analogy (my first one or this one) your argument falls apart.  Notice that the article does not say anything directly about Hitler but expects the reader to click the link if he/she wants to learn more about him.  Likewise if the reader wants to know what's allegedly wrong with Hinn he/she should click through and read that article. SQGibbon (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Either you're too young or you're out of your mind. The mention of the name Hitler is enough for most people without further explanation. Whereas (like you said) 'a less well-known' figure like Benny Hinn would logically need a proper explanation to the controversy surrounding him.5Proof (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the one who brought up Hitler in the first place so it's not my fault if that was a poor example. But let's look at the other example you provided, Augusts Pinochet.  He's definitely less well known than Hitler and even is less is said about him at the Opus Dei article and none of it directly about him.  So again your example article does not support your position.  Finally, there is a proper explanation for Benny Hinn's issues on the article for Benny Hinn which is where it should be, not here.  SQGibbon (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Somehow you seem to be reading into things that are not there. Of course I brought up Opus Dei/Hitler section up as an example. To debunk the excuse by those here that argue Benny Hinn section be removed because he is not 'officially a member pastor of CHC and thus the association made is deem irrelevant/offtopic. So neither is Hitler or Pinochet a part of Opus dei, but it's still rightfully mentioned on it's article. Where have I even indicated it is not still a valid example? 5Proof (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That Benny Hinn has preached at the CHC is already in the article; there was never any intent to remove that. The dispute is over how much detail the article needs to have about Hinn.  Since he is not a member or in any official capacity affiliated with the church then there is no need for any details about him to be mentioned.  If there is a good link to a notable and reliable source that his activities at the church caused significant controversy then that can be included.  For instance something like "Benny Hinn has spoken several times at the CHC(links to church website or wherever that information is).  This has been a source of controversy (link to article source)."  That's what some of us are proposing and I think it's quite reasonable contingent upon finding that good source. SQGibbon (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not true, there might have been some consensus previously and a concise version(less detailed)was edited, but sometime on 11 April 2010 even that was entirely removed and nobody said a word. So you can't say there was never any intent to delete the Benny Hinn association from CHC. 5Proof (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read this section. Benny Hinn is mentioned there and always has been and no one has said anything about removing it.  As for the edit war over the controversy section that has been all-or-nothing so far which is why I made the proposal above.  Again, I think it's reasonable and what we should be focusing on now. SQGibbon (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then. If you have looked at the source links of Hinn in the controversy section, it's sourced from nytimes.com, cnn.com, cbs2.com, ministrywatch.com. Is any of these sources not 'notable and reliable'? 5Proof (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do those sources mention CHC? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those sources confirmed that Benny Hinn is a controversial character Ahnan (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you pls list those sources which mention CHC? A whole set of sources confirm that Benny Hinn is a controversial character but a subset of this whole set is supposed to mention CHC (i.e. CHC's relationship with Benny).Kimberry352 (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go dig it out yourself. It's inside Benny Hinn's article. Don't be lazy Ahnan (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand on what Someguy1221 said, what we're looking for is a source that speaks directly about the controversy surrounding Hinn appearing at the CHC. If such a source exists and is reliable and notable then perhaps it can be used as I outlined above. SQGibbon (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the New Paper article. His appearance in Singapore thru CHC's invitation has caused ill-feelings among Singaporeans. This is reported on the New Paper. You want to remove this info or change it as well? Tell the whole world that Singaporeans were welcoming Benny riding a donkey into Singapore with crowds laying down their cloaks and palm leaves in front of him to receive him? Ahnan (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahnan, you're completely missing the point. The fact that a source mentioned Benny Hinn's invitation was controversial does not open the door to flood the article with content that has nothing to do with CHC. Any editors who care will follow the handy link that's embedded in Hinn's name. That's what links exist for. This has been explained multiple times in this very thread. And to 5proof, the continued conversation from you has strayed well into the realm of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Someguy1221, fine. I'm not asking for putting the whole lot of info on Benny Hinn into CHC's entry. I'm just asking a very brief description or something to indicate that Benny Hinn was controversial since he isn't that well known to Singapore public. If he is Hitler, I agree, the name itself would suffice to explain who he is and what he stands for. This is to make the reading of the whole CHC article much clearer. Is there anything wrong in trying to make the article clearer to everyone? Afterall, few editors here now agree to use a brief or the briefest of the brief to mention Benny Hinn in CHC. Ahnan (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, a scan is not a credible source under wiki rules. We're giving you a benefit of a doubt by asking you to give us the article name to make the reference complete. Please familiarize yourself with how to cite sources, or the section and reference will be removed as it fails wiki's requirement as a source.Zhanzhao (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I really must thank you for your generosity and magnanimity for allowing the scanned article to be used. In fact, thanks to the scan, we now at least can see the truth! In any case, I've given you the title of the article - Visit by hotshot US reverend draws flak on the Net. Any more tricks you want to pull from your sleeves? Just remember this, you can't hide the truth forever.... Ahnan (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No one is trying to hide anything here. As the other editors mentioned above, we merely request that you adhere to Wiki regulations when posting. If you had done that in the first place, we could have avoided the whole wall of text. I hope you at least get a better understanding of how to make constructive edits and discuss civilly instead of just throwing accusations and assuming bad faith with regards to other editors.Zhanzhao (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have to assume bad faith since editor like Kimberry is from CHC. Can't blame me for having this thought Ahnan (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahnan, that article mentions that one blogger and two of his readers were upset. I don't see how this qualifies as being notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  And no, I don't want to tell the world that Singapore welcomed Hinn with open arms (nor is anyone attempting to do that) because I haven't seen anything from a reliable source that makes that claim.  That's how Wikipedia works.  SQGibbon (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * see the section on New Paper article Ahnan (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SQGibbon, His appearance to preach at CHC itself is the controversy, the association with Hinn in itself is the controversy. What I think you're really asking for is a source to explain the nature of controversy. Is that it? You can't understand the problem with a Church's association of a shady character? You need some source to verify it's wrong? Try the Bible.5Proof (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not looking for anything to explain the controversy. What we need is something from a reliable source, that is notable, and can be verified by everyone, that there was a controversy.  You may have first hand knowledge that there was a controversy but that doesn't mean anything to the rest of us nor is it good enough for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not interested in the the Truth.  Wikipedia is only interested in notable and verifiable claims from reliable sources.  That's it.  In this case if there were publics protests that made the national news and was reported in reputable newspapers then those accounts would qualify (that's just one example of a good source; there can be others). Otherwise it doesn't belong in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand with @ SQGibbon, Kimberry352 and Jpatokal.

Why is there a need to include Benny Hinn in the article for CHC? Are you going to include a similar section for all other churches Benny Hinn held a talk previously? What exactly is the link between these 2? Chcmember (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course you would stand with anyone who can get rid of the controversies of CHC here on wiki. You are a CHC member, for Christ's sake. Shame on you, CHC people. You are supposed to adhere to the truth but instead, you are trying to twist the truth by hiding certain "controversial" info from the public. This is a CHC article. As long as any controversies well supported by facts can be found on CHC, they deserved to be told here. This is not your place to advertise your chuch ! Ahnan (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * come to think of it, if Satan here says there is no controversies exist in CHC, you will stand by him too, CHCmember! Ahnan (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Clean up tag
I've added a clean up tag - IMO the article has far too many self published sources and this needs to be addressed. I'm also not sure whether there should be a list of all the albums released, or the ministry information. If it has been discussed in an independent source it should be included but otherwise it should go. Smartse (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smartse suggestion. The listing of the albums make the page look more like a marketing page for the church to showcase what it has to offer/sell which is not what wiki is about. I would also like to see more independent sources used instead. I've noted members of the church have been involved in editing the contents of the webpage as well often adding contents to market the church instead of adding informative contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.233.83 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I don't quite like what I'm seeing here... so I've tagged a few more maintenance templates (for the obvious reasons) and is awaiting for an expert to review this. Regards. (P.S.:Note that I am very strongly opinionated for Wikipedia to stay WP:NPOV on various issues, this being one of them now.) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I noted that the tags includes: Use of "peacock terms", "weasel words" and it has "extensive bias".

Weasel words: "These phrases present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information, and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed"

Examples: "Some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it was proven"

Peacock terms: Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

Examples: "Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and the greatest songwriter of all time"

May you state exactly where are such words or examples found in the article? We can then improve the article together. Till its proven that the article does contain such words, i dont think its fair to tag it. State examples of such words used and there will be no refute why the article should be tagged.

Eugene22 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning to User:Sukarnobhumibol
Per this and this, I have twice warned you not to remove the maintenance templates when there is an ongoing discussion and you refused to heed, please take note that my AGF for you has expired with your second revert and I'm nominating you now to WP:ANI for sanction measures. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You never had AGF towards me. And since you accused me of being a certain user, I also lost my AGF towards you... Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * EOD Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning to 5Proof
Note that the general editor consensus among the many editors both on the article talk page[] AND the COI section [] recommend either full removal of the section on Hinnes, or only a mention of the person with a link to his article to remain in the church article. Your constant reverting of unapproved material is unconstructive.

As summarized

''That said the edits made by that user with regard to this specific issue are in agreement with several other editors who have no obvious connection to the church for example [12], [13], and [14] (the last diff showing one of my comments — I knew nothing about this church till recently when I saw it come up on this COI notice board). User Ahnan, however, appears to be a limited purpose account. Looking at this user's contributions we see numerous edits to this article, the one for New Creation Church and a few for Lim Biow Chuan. Kimberry353 is acting in Good Faith and has not violated COI with respect to this issue. Several editors who appear to not have any connection to the church have reached the same conclusion. If anything users Ahnan and 5Proof are engaging in coatracking. SQGibbon (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)''

I note that your account seems to have been created only for the purpose of adding "support" to include the excessive detail on Hinnes on the article. More so than Ahnan, your's so far is indeed a SINGLE purpose account.

Wikipedia is a community effort, not some place for you to rant your person opinions. Follow its rules, especially those about NPOV and COATRACK which you have been repeatedly warned about[]. If you continue with your disputed reverts, this is liable to get escalated to the next level which is an official complaint against your editorial actions.

I'm putting this here as well as on your talk page since you do not appear to have a habit of reading or replying to your talk page.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Need name of article on The New Paper
As per suggestion, I'm leaving in content that links Hinn to the church. However, the only source we have is the scan of The New Paper article that Ahnan provided. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that the scan is real, but without the name of the article (I can only derive the reporter name, news source and date), the referencing is bad and can justifiably be removed. So if any one of you guys want to make sure that part stays in.Zhanzhao (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here, the title is Visit by hotshot US reverend draws flak on the Net, By: LIEW HANQING, The New Paper, 10/10/2008, hanqing@sph.com.sg "HE is one...major cities – Reverend Benny Hinn is one of the most high...Hinn family reveals that Benny Hinn Ministries has far more money...evidence against speakers like Benny Hinn, why is CHC continuing to give..." (639 words) Page: 4, Zhanzhao, any more reasons you want to throw at us to remove CHC's controversies? Ahnan (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, I just needed the name to complete the reference. After all, I am the one who added the reference in the article (sans the article name which I could not derive from the scan), and if you recall, I was the one who tried to summarize it to prevent it from being removed in its entirety. When you provided the scan, I was assuming you are giving me something genuine to add, though unusable/unreliable in the form you gave (a scan) as per WP:RS, and thankfully you justified my trust in you. However, do note that as per the COI discussion and with the other editors above, only information about Hinn which is relevant to the church should remain. As the other editor rightfully pointed out, Hinn being invited to the 1st Asian conference was also already mentioned earlier on in the article, so the only thing left would be about his visit drawing flack from some netizens.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who gives a damn if I justified your trust or not? Who are you to demand that I should do things to get your trust? Are you Jesus Christ? Important thing is, we want to see the controversial facts of CHC gets recorded and not whitewashed by you fellas. There were many attempts in the past to have the controversial facts written in CHC entry but were deleted due to technicalities. This time round, I'm here to ensure that CHC gets its proper airing of their dirty lindens in public so as to safeguard the interests of the public. I've done it for NCC before, so I know what it is like to "fight" with the church zealots... anyway, I still think some brief mentions of Hinn's controversial character is necessary cause he is not as "famous" as Hitler. Ahnan (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It will do you good to note that just because editors are censuring you on your edits, its because of your failing to adhere to Wiki policy. "Technicalities" as you so put it, exist for a reason. Also your language here also does not correspond with your claim of neutrality, something the editors here will surely take note. As mentioned in your talk page, "Wikipedia is not a battleground, to discuss the ethics, motivations, or morality of those with whom you disagree (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith), or to "call out" anyone on those similar points. I would also like to recommend that you read the essays No angry mastodons and Staying cool when the editing gets hot."Zhanzhao (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not a battleground, to discuss the ethics, motivations, or morality of those with whom you disagree - well, certainly Wikipedia is a place where even proven controversies can be revealed... Ahnan (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, as long as you abide by Wiki rules and general editor consensus (since we ourselves abide and follow them). Zhanzhao (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * HAHA! Mr Zhanzhao, I see that you have made a complaint against me to Wiki mods behind my back... you didn't even try to talk to me first, did you? HAHA! I will be watching you closely too from now on. If there is any infringement on your part, I can complain too. Ahnan (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned to you, feel free to "wtch" me as you say. Any feedback you can give me on how to become a better wiki editor is welcome. But do make sure your complaints are indeed justified. Looking at another edit war you are having at another article, your usage of wiki policy to back your edits have been pointed out to be wrong.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --> This Wikipedia is not a place for debate whereby controversies (whether they are speculation or facts) are revealed. They have to be verified and relevant to right topics. It should be better to stay cool and be open-minded. Kimberry352 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to search for this title over the internet but I could not find it. Instead, I use the web-based Factiva (www.factiva.com) research tool that provides reliable source. Agreed with Ahnan for the correct title --> According to Factiva, this title "Visit by hotshot US reverend draws flak on the Net" is correct -- Screenshot article from Factiva at [].Kimberry352 (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that article the only evidence of controversy that anyone can come up with? If so, there are serious problems with that article.  It's basically a fluff piece.  That a few bloggers were upset that Benny Hinn was going to speak at the CHC is not notable.  Everything that happens everywhere is bound to upset a few bloggers.  That's not news and it's not notable.  If that's the only objective, verifiable evidence of controversy then it should not be included in the article .  Unless something good comes up then my position, as of this moment, is that there should be no mention of Benny Hinn's appearance being controversial. SQGibbon (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SQGibbon, There is no problem with the article. This is a newspaper. Obviously, they won't print news if only 1 or 2 person are talking about it. Newspaper write news to reflect the situation. And obviously, they can't be quoting 1 million people on the it since space is limited. They can only afford to quote 1 or 2 relevant ones. At the beginning of the article, it said, "And his engagement to speak to City Harvest Church's (CHC) first Asia Conference in Singapore has stirred strong reactions among netizens." Now, do you think the reporter would be referring to just 1 or 2 bloggers when he mentioned "among netizens"? Obviously, as said, he had seen the ground and decided to write about it and to back him up, he quoted a couple of examples. That's the way reports are written anyway. I'm curious, what's your writing experience, SqGibbon? Ahnan (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that there were more than these three people complaining. But I also have no idea at what threshold this particular journalist working for that particular newspaper finds sufficient for writing an article.  Were there 10 bloggers?  Is that enough for an article?  Maybe. Is that notable?  Definitely not.  But reading anything into the article is speculation and has no place in Wikipedia.  We have to rely on what's actually written in the article. If there were a million people complaining then not only would this article have probably mentioned that but then other news sources would have picked up on it also and we wouldn't be arguing about the usefulness of this article.  SQGibbon (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree with your analysis. Even if you read some of the UK newspaper reporting about certain event, they would talk about the public in general. No journalist will or can report a specific number of responses from the public. It's always a gut feel thing. Newpaper in Singapore is a public newspaper. They have their own reputation to protect. So, when they say netizens, they would have probably sense the general goings is negative... same for Govt making policies in a country. They would do a straw poll of few hundred of thousands to get a statistical feel of the situation. The newpaper info is a credible source. you are now even disputing this when even presented the source. This is most unprofessional of you. Do you have an agenda here? Ahnan (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Hinn is still in the article. He even gets his own sub-heading for himself (despite the lack of substantial relevant content which is why it such a small section). As repeatedly reiterated by may editors, this article is about CHC, not Hinn. What issue still remains?Zhanzhao (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Zhanzhao, now that I've read that source I question its reliability. I now take the position that Hinn's controversy section should be deleted unless a good source can be found.  Earlier I was willing to go along with just mentioning that Hinn's time at the CHC was controversial assuming a good source could be found to support that claim.  A good source hasn't been found SQGibbon (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -> A good source has been found but our chap Gibbon here says it's not credible. Cause he is questioning the reliability of the reporter too! He is saying the reporter can't based on 1 or 2 public comments to say that the public is negative. I'm saying is the other way round. The reporter has ascertained that the public is negative and to give readers a glimpse into the situation, he quoted 1 or 2 examples. Here, Gibbon, go read this UK's guardian's article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/mar/01/bbc-nao - [Public outcry over BBC closures drowns out spending row]. In the article, the reporter wrote, "The immediate reaction was an outcry by listeners who objected to having these vital areas of their listening taken away (perhaps)." Now, by the same token, how do you know that what Guardian wrote is credible. How do you know that this Guardian's reporter is credible? How many listeners did she count before reporting this? 10,100,1000,10000000000??? Obviously, through her reporting experience and through Guardian's reputation, they stand by what they feel is the public reaction! Gibbon, I think you are being ridiculous here. If we adopt your argument, then I would go around disputing all wiki entries cause wiki does quote from many many newspaper sources! So, how about it? If you dispute this, I'm going to start disputing all the writings you have done since, by the same token, I'm going to dispute the credibility of all the reporters whom you have quoted from. Ahnan (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahnan, you are engaging in speculation. To go from the journalist noting that three people are upset by CHC having Hinn speak at the church to assuming that the journalist is aware of some much larger number of people being upset and being notable is you claiming knowledge that you cannot possibly have and since it's not specifically there in the article it is inappropriate to use.  With your example from the Guardian, is that article being used as a source somewhere in Wikipedia to support the claim that there is a significant public response to the closing of those radio services?  If not then how is that relevant?  I'll repeat myself, not every article from every newspaper is an appropriate source to be used on Wikipedia or even more to the point not every line from every article is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Please read the section on newspapers in the Wikipedia policy concerning reliable sources here.  SQGibbon (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already told you. It's quite typical for a reporter to quote some examples in their story. Do you seriously think the reporter will report if only 3 Singaporeans in Singapore objected to Hinn??? Where is your common sense? Obviously, the reporter had observed the net chatters rising rapidly when Hinn was in Singapore and he reported it. To make his story more complete, he interviewed a few people to show the "ground" situation. This is a common reporting format. The guardian article is not related to wiki but I'm using it to argue against your poor logic which you don't seem to get. I'm not using any article from any newspaper but the relevant ones to back up my claim that Hinn's presence in Singapore, thanks to CHC hosting, has caused a stir and I want to report it as such. To delete the whole text off is like saying Hinn has never come to Singapore or that there was no problem of Hinn's presence here in Singapore. Everyone love him here, which certainly is not the case. You are not doing justice to the article by hiding the truth, that's all I'm saying. Anyway, it's obvious that we are going to have problems with each other. Can we have other experienced non-Singaporeans wiki editors here? I think this is going to be a long drawn affair. Despite my harsh language at times, I'm actually quite a logical person. If you have the logic, I'll agree with you. Ahnan (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So how many internet bloggers that were upset with Hinn coming to the CHC did the reporter observe? Any idea?  How many does it take to make the story notable?  Did the reporter notice 15 people on three blogs?  That's certainly enough for a newspaper article but is it notable?  How can we possibly know what criteria this reporter used and infer from that that the public outcry was significant?  As for the Guardian article, if it were going to be used to justify a claim of a "public outcry" in a separate controversy section about BBC radio then I would question that as well.  It's too vague and requires interpretation from editors to suss out the meaning which is the same as Original Research. And no, deleting Hinn from the controversy section is not like saying he never came to Singapore or that there were no problems.  First, that Hinn came to Singapore is already mentioned elsewhere in the article.  Second, saying nothing about a public reaction is not the same thing as saying the public loved him.  Also, you keep talking about the "truth".  Have you read the Truth article?  SQGibbon (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many internet bloggers but we trust that being a reputable newspaper in Singapore, the editor in chief of Newpaper would have sensed the temperature of the situation hot enough to report it. It doesn't make sense for a reputable newspaper to stake their claim on this report if only 15 people in the whole Singapore are concerned about Hinn, right? It's the same case for Guardian and any other newspaper. Yes, it's a judgment call thing and that's why you pay big bucks to get a good editor who is savvy enough to know what to report. Many newspapers who report on public outcries do not literally count on the number of people before reporting it as a public outcry. Cause there is no time and there is no way to do it. It's a judgment call. For readers, we have to trust the reputation of the newspaper so as to accept its professionalism in reporting. I'm not sure if you are aware about newspaper business but it may be good if you go talk to a journalist about it. Like I say, if you are going to doubt the judgment of the reporter or editor, there is no end to it. We can kiss the whole wiki good bye cause many of wiki refs come from reputable newspapers. Ahnan (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you object to in the New Paper source?  The article currently simply states that "While some Singaporeans criticized the invitations due to Hinn's controversial reputation, the church dismissed the criticism.", and the newspaper amply backs up every word of that. Jpatokal (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jpatokal, I think SQGibbons means (as he mentions below) is that the particular article, rather than the paper itself, might be questionable. I.e. Newspapers can also have opinion pieces, but content from those sections would not automatically make them good articles as per wiki policy.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -> Zhanzhao, I see that you are now taking opportunities to take pot shots here. See my explanation to the above. If you guys say this article is bad, I'm going to go thru all of your writings and argue that all the articles you have quoted from are bad too !!! Ahnan (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you took the time to cool down and read my comment carefully, I was merely suggesting the possible reason behind SQGibbon's doubts about the article, and to inform Jpatokal to read his whole comment in context rather than as 2 separate parts. I am neither for or against the point he raised. However I'd like to point out that your threat to go through the contributions of any editor to nit-pick is an outright self-admission of your intention to engage in Wikihounding.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, Gibbon is questioning the validity of article even though the source comes from a reputable newspaper. He is trying to rule out the evidence so as to dismiss the whole case. I'm sorry, I can't agree with him on the point that the newpaper article is a poor source. I've used the guardian article as an example to counter his points but he doesn't seem to get it. I'm even wondering if has the right intellectual capacity to be a wiki editor here. Next, you said that I "hound" or "stalk" him. If you read carefully, I'm only countering his points here in this article. I do not have the time to go thru his history to stalk him. In fact, it is he who is stalking me now!! There is another wiki entry I'm involved in editing and he is now, obviously pissed off with me, there countering me. Of course, I always welcome a good challenge. I'm not too perturbed. Ahnan (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the validity of the article. I'm questioning whether that one line justifies having a separate section in this Wiki article about a "Hinn controversy".


 * Jpatokal, the implication currently in this article is that there was a significant public outcry caused by the CHC having Hinn speak at the church. The source for this "public outcry" is this line from that newspaper article "And his engagement to speak at City Harvest Church's first Asia Conference in Singapore has stirred strong reactions among netizens."  I do not see how we can infer from this line that there was a significant and notable negative public response.  Having a separate subsection under the "controversy" section about Hinn based on this one line is giving undue weight to that line.  In other words that line is not sufficient to justify having a separate subsection for the Hinn controversy.  SQGibbon (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gibbon, I know you are now pissed off with me and as such, are trying to nit-pick and find all ways to counter my suggestions here. But that's ok, I always fight with logic. I love a good challenge. Now you said that the line from that newspaper article "And his engagement to speak at City Harvest Church's first Asia Conference in Singapore has stirred strong reactions among netizens." is weak and cannot be inferred that there is a significant negative public response. I then show you another article, this time from UK's Guardian newspaper (no doubt, pretty reputable), http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/mar/01/bbc-nao - [Public outcry over BBC closures drowns out spending row]. It mentioned about the Public outcry over BBC closures of a couple of their radio services (as stated in the title). Now, if you read the line inside the article, "The immediate reaction was an outcry by listeners who objected to having these vital areas of their listening taken away." Now, by the same token, can you infer just from that line that there is also significant negative public response? Still, Guardian decided to use the term "Public outcry" to suggest that many people, the public in general, are against the BBC closures of their 2 radio services. Do you get my point? I'm not sure if you are familiar with Newspaper business, but it takes more than just a reporter to report it. An article typically goes thru a couple of editors including the chief editor vettings before they decide if the article goes to print. This is because they've got the newspaper reputation to protect. A lousy article with no public interest or public significance can get canned by the editor even after it is written by the reporter. Hence, if the newspaper allows the article to be published with a certain title, they would have assessed it as of public significance. Get it? By the way, isn't Gibbon some type of a monkey? Ahnan (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nowhere near enough detail in the article to make it useful as a source in the way you want to use it. Any newspaper article that uses such obvious weasel words is also disqualified as a good source with regard to Wikipedia.  We're not interested in someone's "gut feel thing" on any topic.  Period.  It doesn't matter who that person is and where that opinion is published, it is not a reliable source.  And just because newspapers are often considered to be reliable sources it doesn't mean that every article in them is a reliable source.  It's also odd that you mention straw polls.  Well done polls are already problematic but straw polls are pretty much worthless, but I'll let you read that article yourself.  My "agenda"?  Sure, if you can call it an agenda, my "agenda" is to improve Wikipedia and follow its policies as well as I can regardless of whatever personal feelings I have with regard to subject matter. SQGibbon (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -> Ok then, Mr Gibbon, I'm going to say that all the articles you have quoted from are unreliable too cause I too don't like the way the articles presented themselves. I think the words used are also pretty weasel too. Fair? Christ! you are getting ridiculous! Ahnan (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article and the newspaper says "some Singaporeans", meaning "more than one", and it even quotes three (= more than one) of these critical Singaporeans. Are you alleging that The New Paper made up these quotes and that there are in fact only zero or one Singaporeans who criticized Hinn's visits, or what exactly do you find unreliable about this? Jpatokal (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gibbon seems to rely on the wordings (e.g. whether they're weasel or not) inside the article to determine the validity and trustwothiness of the reporter. I find this strange. The professionalism of the reporter or newspaper should be judged by the reputation of the newspaper, yes? Ahnan (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright folks, how about this. Under the section "Asia Conference" is the line "Speakers included Kong Hee, Phil Pringle, Chris Pringle, Ulf Ekman, A. R. Bernard and Benny Hinn.", we change this to " Speakers included Kong Hee, Phil Pringle, Chris Pringle, Ulf Ekman, A. R. Bernard and, controversially, Benny Hinn." with the link to the article and get rid of the Benny Hinn subsection. This version acknowledges that there was a controversy without giving undue weight to the rather vague claim from the source as to the significance of the controversy. SQGibbon (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's absolutely terrible -- it doesn't say anything about what was controversial, where, or how. Jpatokal (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually preferred with the subsection..... it makes the Asia Conference line flow badly. Anyway SQGibbons since no one here bothered to tell you before, but The New Paper is the Singapore's second-highest circulating paid English-language newspaper. Its not one of those trashy tabloids, and I would think the editor-in-chief would have approved the article for it to get published so as to safeguard professional interests. However, as before, the controversy section should only state information that ties Hinn to the church. Add a link to Hinn's page so people who want to find out more can explore at will. Remember people, readers come to this page to find out about the church, not Hinn. Links are there for a purpose. Use it.


 * ok, I'm willing to compromise and go with ZhanZhao's suggestion. As long as CHC's controversial tie to Hinn is mentioned, it should suffice. I would also suggest, like what Jpatokal(?) have proposed, add in the controversial refs of Hinn next to Hinn's link. How does that sound Ahnan (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jpatokal, 5Proof, Ahnan, etc., this is going to be long. You might still disagree with my position in the end but hopefully at least you'll understand where I'm coming from. When I read the article from The New Paper the line "And his engagement to speak at City Harvest Church's first Asia Conference in Singapore has stirred strong reactions among netizens." comes across rather vague. It seems to me that the reporter could have observed anywhere from say 50 to 10,000 people reacting negatively to Hinn's speaking engagement. If there were 10,000 people then not only is that sufficient for a newspaper article but it's more than significant enough for a subsection in this article. That's a lot of people. If it's only 50 people then I think that's still enough for a newspaper article (the New York Times, for example, would publish an article like that) but not for a subsection in this Wiki article though certainly enough for the kind of mention I proposed above. Let me use an example. (Sorry this is a US-centric example but hopefully it'll be clear enough anyway.) Look at the US 2008 presidential election page. One thing you may not know about the election is that as long as you are at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen you are eligible to be president. Getting on the ballots can be difficult but people can write your name in and those votes count (well, there are technical reasons why they wouldn't but let's ignore that for the sake of the example). If you look through the article you'll see that a lot of it is taken up with discussions about the two major political party candidates (Obama and McCain), but look at the end of this section and you'll see that Bradford Lyttle received 110 votes. That's sufficient to mention his name in the article but if you search the page you'll see that's the only place he's mentioned. Bradford Lyttle was significant enough to be placed in the article but not so significant to warrant any discussion over. Now back to Hinn and the CHC. If the reporter only observed 50 people online complaining, then just like Lyttle, that might warrant a mention, but again just like Lyttle would not justify an entire subsection. If it were 10,000 or even just 1,000 people then that would be different and would justify a separate subsection in the article. So back to that newspaper article, when I read it it's impossible for me to tell if the reporter observed 50 or 10,000 people. Y'all might know the truth. Maybe it was 10,000 people, maybe there were organized protests and letter writing campaigns, maybe even television interviews with the leaders of the protest movement, but personal knowledge is not an acceptable justification for including information in Wikipedia. No matter how much we know about something the only things that can make it into articles are those that are notable, come from reliable sources, are verifiable by anyone, and do not require interpretation by readers (i.e., they state clearly the fact to be included in the article). Since there is no way to be sure how significant the protests were (without reference to personal knowledge) it seems clear to me that the only thing that can be justified is to mention that Hinn's speaking engagement was controversial with a link to that newspaper article. I'll also say this, had the negative reactions involved say 10,000 people then it would seem to me that this would have been reported in several sources and we'd have those sources to use instead of this single one. I know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it does hint that maybe the number of people who were upset enough to say something weren't really that many in number. It's probably also helpful to read WP:RSUW. SQGibbon (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline you should be looking at is WP:OR, since your speculation of how many people in Singapore reacted negatively is just that. Jpatokal (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that I'm not speculating. I have no idea what the reporter meant and as such it would be a mistake to assume that the reporter meant a significant number of people, i.e., err on the side of caution. SQGibbon (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ->In reading newspaper, I think you should trust the reputation of the newspaper itself, as I have explained. There is no way, when any newspaper reporting on public response, able to count exactly how many people are responding before it will count that as public. This comes from experience of the reporter plus several layers of editors and ultimately, the Editor-in-chief. The newspaper has to ascertain that it's a significant news in the first place in order to publish it. If it's just a few bloggers objecting to it when the rest of Singaporeans do not give a damn, do you think the newspaper will bother to report? It will infact backfire on itself and harm its own reputation. I can google tonnes of news reporting on public outcry but they won't tell you exactly how many people cry. Still, the readers reading it will trust that the editors have done their part in assuring the quality and validity of the news. And again, it's quite common for reporters to interview a few people out from the "public" so as to give readers a feel for the ground situation. The question, Gibbon, you should be asking is, Is the New Paper credible enough to claim that there is a strong reactions from netizens about Hinn's speaking engagement in Singapore? Ahnan (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything I've written so far is under the assumption that the newspaper is entirely reliable, just to get that out of the way. So let me ask you this, if the reporter had noticed 50 people online complaining about Hinn speaking at the CHC would that have been enough people for the newspaper to publish that article as is?  I definitely think so and perhaps even fewer than that and in no way would that have ruined the reputation of the newspaper.  I see protests in my home town (I live in a large metropolitan area) involving 10 people make it into the local newspaper.  It's what newspapers do. Not everything has to be as significant as humans landing on the moon, it can also be about local churches and their activities. OK, I just found one of the blog posts that the reporter used (the other one seems to have disappeared from the net) here.  It has 93 comments but as far as I can tell only about 40 different people responded.  If the other post had as many comments then that might be 100 different people being upset at Hinn's speaking engagement (though not everyone was complaining, I'm just being generous).  Is that sufficient for a journalist to report "strong reactions among netizens"?  If so, is that sufficient, just based on those numbers alone, to state that this controversy is notable enough for its own subsection? SQGibbon (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the TNP dated on 10 Oct 2008, the TNP reporter seemed to take certain portion of the blog posts which were written by few (i.e. two) selected netizens like Terence and Mr Lim Yee Hung. I think that certain prominent collective blogs such as Tomorrow.sg might have share same opinion/interest as Terence's and Mr Lim's and other people so their 'common' opinions have become statements in the reputable newspaper TNP (although TNP is a tabloid). Hm.. Kimberry352 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to weigh in, one has to consider that if "controversy" is just added as a description of Hinn in another subsection, one would not read that Hinn was controversial to Singapore's context, rather than controverial in his native country but not in Singapore. I feel that the subsection is justified in that it clearly explains that the controversy extends to Singapore as well. However in saying that, I am still of the opinion that details of Hinn's controversial nature should remain in his own article, and not replicated here as it is of no relation to the CHC article So the current length as of now is ok. However, I think it is acceptable to make it more obvious that there is another article dedicated to Hinn with Main Article:Benny Hinn. See like how it is done [|here]. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's right. Yes, the link to main article of Benny Hinn should be added if necessarily. Kimberry352 (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, one last appeal. All the cards on the table. The notability of this controversy hinges on one journalist reporting in one article in one newspaper that the blogosphere complained about Hinn speaking at the CHC. A blogosphere that numbered, to the best of my ability to figure out, around 100 people (probably less, maybe more but in that ballpark). But here's the rub, who cares. 100 people online whining about something is completely meaningless. The bogosphere whines about everything under the sun 24 hours a day 7 days a week and no one cares and it's not notable. That they were whining about Hinn speaking at the CHC means nothing. Had only ten people showed up at the church to protest Hinn's speaking engagement that would have been many times more significant than 100 people complaining about it online but still wouldn't have warranted mention in this article because it's an insignificant number of people. Had an organization consisting of 25 people calling themselves something like Singaporeans for Religious Integrity issued a press release condemning the CHC for having Hinn speak there would have been several times more significant than those ten protesters which means orders of magnitude more meaningful than 100 people whining about it online. And still that press release might not warrant mention in this article. Some of you are making the claim that I am impugning the integrity of that newspaper. I am not. I read several newspapers throughout the week. What I notice is that not every single article in a newspaper is notable enough for use in Wikipedia. More specifically not every single line of every single article is worthy of mention in Wikipedia. Even more to the point every single mention of every single person or group that happens in even the best newspapers does not automatically confer notability on those people. Does anyone here seriously believe that if Encyclopedia Britannica had an article about the CHC that it would include a subsection within the "controversy" section that was based entirely on the complaints of 100 people spread across two blogs? Really? There is nothing notable about 100 people online complaining about Hinn regardless of what newspaper that information appears in. There is no magical Wikipedia formula that says that appearing in a reputable newspaper automatically confers notability. Now, given all that I've said adding a note to the section mentioning Hinn's appearance during the Asian Conference saying that his appearance was controversial (with the link to the article) while still giving undue significance to the "controversy" is better than having a separate subsection concerning the Hinn controversy. It's more than this controversy deserves but at least it's not as out of place. SQGibbon (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the conference section can be re-written to point out distinctly that Hinn's controversial nature is with respect to the church and his presense/invitation there, rather than just that he was controversial in general, that way of mentioning Hinn should be acceptable. As mentioned, the crux is that a difference must be made between general controversial nature of Hinns and its significance to this article (local controversy over him).Zhanzhao (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, instead of "Speakers included Kong Hee, Phil Pringle, Chris Pringle, Ulf Ekman, A. R. Bernard and Benny Hinn." how about "Speakers included Kong Hee, Phil Pringle, Chris Pringle, Ulf Ekman, A. R. Bernard, and Benny Hinn (whose participation resulted in criticism from some online communities(link))." SQGibbon (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The attempt is in the right direction, but you'd need to make it cleare that only Hinn's participation was the one drawing online criticism (might be misintepreted that the criticism refers to the whole lot). Also its necessary to point out that the criticism was from the online communities local to the church (Only in Singapore, not worldwide. I guess the 2nd part is related to the same question of ensuring that it is clear that there is controversy with regards to the community/church of this article.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK how about "Speakers included Kong Hee, Phil Pringle, Chris Pringle, Ulf Ekman, and A. R. Bernard. Benny Hinn also spoke resulting in controversy among several local online communities(link)." SQGibbon (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

SQGibbon, I like the good example that you wrote above - quoted as "Had an organization consisting of 25 people calling themselves something like Singaporeans for Religious Integrity issued a press release condemning the CHC for having Hinn speak there would have been several times more significant than those ten protesters which means orders of magnitude more meaningful than 100 people whining about it online." --> That was is the good example. I tried to think out of the box about why I stressed that relevant and ontopic articles are right to be added in the CHC's wiki page as long as they are consistent with fact or reality. Kimberry352 (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Zhanzhao above. The most important point is the specific controversy about Benny's invitational visit to CHC pertaining to his presence in CHC rather than his general controversies. The next points are the relevance and reliability of the controversy. In Singapore, the general public have different point of views towards Benny Hinn who visited to Singapore. Despite the blogosphere contains different opinions and these opinions are 'questionable' sources, certain opinions are consistent to show that the 'half' of Singapore public (regardless of whether they are bloggers or not) expressed their unhappiness because of Benny's invitational vist to CHC, especially for Asia Conference 2008. Although the TNP article seems to require notable source which has not yet been established, it is still relevant to both CHC and Benny Hinn.