Talk:City Harvest Church/Archive 4

S$310 million Suntec investment
Is this really a controversy topic or is it just something that there is a lack of information to the public masses?

It seems that everything has been clarified, and CHC had also released Media Clarifications on the Church website. Just because 1 or 2 person are "unhappy" over the deal, has it become such a big issue?

Accordingly to the Church claifications, there is a Non Disclosure Agreement between Suntec and them and there's the reason why certain facts are not realeased to the public. In addition, the authorites have been informed accordingly. Now, if there is really any controversy, do you think the government and the authorites will not do anything about it?

Chcmember (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -> Ah... Chcmember here to defend his church. Well, pls tell me. If this is not a controversy, why would the public be angry about the whole CHC's deal? People are questioning whether religious organisations, which are registered as charities, should be allowed to do business with donor funds! You guys are really shameless in promoting CHC, even on wiki... You'd better not remove or I'm going to complain against you for breaching COI!Ahnan (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss it here before removing anything. The issue was indeed covered substantially by the national papers as well. Another way of thinking about this is that if the item was left out, others indeed think that an attempt was being made to whitewash the article. However do feel free to try to fix up the tone if you think the language concerning that section is NPOV.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What a surprise! Thought you were a CHC member. At least now you are able to see the merits of balanced and factual reporting... Ahnan (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said replied if I was or was not a member, as any response would be revealing information about myself. In Wikipedia, I strive only to be a neutral editor.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However, I believe there were follow-up reports which stated that the government found nothing wrong with the dealings, so do feel free to put that in the article.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * CHC member can add this fact if it can be proven but to remove the entire text, I'm dead against it esp when those controversial text is well supported by refs. Ahnan (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is poorly written. The parts quoting random church members should clearly be deleted.  That said, the two newspaper articles do indicate that there was a controversy.  That the truth of the matter might turn out to be a misunderstanding does not meant that there wasn't a notable controversy.  Given your username other editors might assume that there would be a conflict of interest were you to delete the section or heavily rewrite it. I agree the section needs help but any changes you want to make should be proposed here first.  SQGibbon (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not going to pull the same stunt again, are you? Telling people here you think the newspaper writing is bad and hence, throw out the whole text. It's like you trying to act as a judge to rule that the evidence is inadmissible and hence, throw out the entire case. Well, Mr Gibbon, I don't think you are the only judge here. Ahnan (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister just mention this in the Singaporean papers yesterday. And I quote: "He noted that groups are becoming more visible, organising large-scale events at commercial venues. There have also been discussions of religious groups being involved in business.'These trends are of concern to Singaporeans as they are seen to be a further encroachment of religion into the common space,' he said. 'We have to find the right balance: We cannot have unbridled freedom of religion at the expense of nation-building and social cohesion, to the extent that it foments divisiveness among our people. 'We will continue to refine our policies to ensure this.' ".      If this is still not a verified notable controversy, then obliviously there's COI issues here. 5Proof (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * -> 5proof, I think it's a good idea to add this ref in too. This news came out just today, quoting the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore. Ahnan (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey 5Proof, you responded to me but perhaps you meant this as a response to Chcmember? Anyway, out of curiosity, was the quote you supplied about the CHC Suntec investment or the activities of religious institutions in general? SQGibbon (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in response to the first post and any subsequent ones that doubt this is a notable verified issue here in our country now.5Proof (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK but the second part of my post, was the quote you supplied about the CHC Suntec situation or the business activities of religious institutions in general? SQGibbon (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, let me put the said quote in the obvious context. The 1st line of the statment is in reference of the hand full of Mega-Churches amongst which CHC is the biggest part of. The 2nd line puts focus directly on CHC (Suntec investment) in particular, no one else but them are under questioning by the authorities in regards to it's official status as charity and it's business interests; which if you care to know, is all in the 'S$310 million Suntec investment' section.5Proof (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My suggestion to fixing the Suntec section is to keep it straight to the point. Stick to the important points. I.e. we don't need details specific quotes from interviewees (Just state that there was mixed views within the congregation); the number of letters, and their question (Which is already mentioned in the 1st paragraph) is redundant. Just say the same issue was also raised in the local press., and perhaps the last 2 lines can be summarized as "The church downplayed rumours that the management board and Reverend Kong were "deliberately concealing a number of embarrassing facts from its members" with regards to the investment."Zhanzhao (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe "The church downplayed allegations that the management board and Reverend Kong were "deliberately concealing a number of embarrassing facts from its members" with regards to the investment." And I'd suggest adding a summarized statement somewhere in the section, noting what the state official comments were, like "The republic officials also view 'These trends are of concern to Singaporeans as they are seen to be a further encroachment of religion into the common space,'" 5Proof (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * just simply state the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore. He was the one making the statement. We can say, The deputy Prime Minister of Singapore also showed concerns that religious groups are being involved in business. He viewed that 'These trends are of concern to Singaporeans as they are seen to be a further encroachment of religion into the common space'. This came from the Straits Times today. Ahnan (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, it's important we get the official comment in. And Zhanzhao's two summarized paragraphs should be okay as well. 5Proof (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should this be mentioned as a controversy? Is really the public angry about this deal? I read that there are those thinks the deal makes economic sense. I agreed with what CHCmember is saying: Simply because the newspaper interviews 1 or 2 person who seems to be unhappy in order to push up sales, this has become a controversy??? Is there really a public uproar? Have you checked up the meaning of controversy??? Isn't this just a media hype? Besides, CHC has clarified and there are no taxation issues here as it is done through another non-charity status company. There isn't really any room of controversy. Eugene22 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it's controversial. In fact, it's so controversial that even the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Wong Kan Seng, who also heads Singapore's Internal Security Dept, has to come out and show concerns about religious groups being involved in business. Are you saying that our DPM is wrong? Are you saying that DPM's comment was frivolous? Are you implying that our DPM lied? This is ground for defamation. What's your IC number? I would like to forward it to ISD. Ahnan (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, Wong Kan Seng did not explicitly name Suntec in the interview, nor did the article name or draw the link explicit as well. Do correct if I'm wrong on this. If I'm right however, under Wikipedia policy editors are NOT allowed to draw our own conclusions/opinions and correlate them together. That belongs to WP:OR (and another rule I cannot recall at the moment).


 * First of all, anyone Singaporeans would know that Wong Kan Seng's comment was definitely triggered by the recent $310 million Suntec investment by CHC cause the timing is too coincidental. Wong Kan Seng is merely trying to generalize it by not specifically naming any churches. Regardless, CHC's dabbling with business definitely comes under the purview of Wong's comment. Secondly, this is a talk page. I'm merely rebutting Eugene22 here. I'm aware that in the main article, it has to be written factually with qualified sources backing it. Ahnan (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That being said, Ahnan, your last post is definitely a Legal Threat against Eugene22 which may result in your editor status being revoked: the punishments on this  are quite strict[]. I would suggest you cool down and think carefully before you make your next post here.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * well, strictly speaking, I'm not making a legal threat since I'm not the one being "defamed" and I won't be the one suing, rest be assured. I'm merely reporting the incident to the appropriate authority (if I decide to proceed with that). This is no different from seeing a murder on the street and reporting it to the authority. Just considering if I would want to perform my duty as a responsible citizen. Nevertheless, since I would be involved in editing this article with you for a long time, I've decided to take your advice and take back what I've said earlier by striking out my earlier "threatening" remarks. Still, as Singaporean, Eugene22 should be well aware that ISD does monitor things online... Ahnan (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Ahnan, please note that the policy regarding legal threat kicks in as soon as the threat is made, not when you make a report. Also see here[]. To state that you are considering reporting him to the authorities still constitutes a threat under Wiki policy as you are trying to coerce him from editing the way he sees fit as you are threatening to "harm" them. If his edits or points are questionable, question them by their own merits. Wikipedia operates under its own rules, for better or worse. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Recording and Stage Productions
While the article has garnered quite a few keen editors at the moment, I believe the article also needs cleaning up on the top bit. The controversy section is at the bottom and short whereas the top bit (which I find unnecessarily long) detailing about the church seems more like a section the church is using to market itself. I don't think it is required for each album/production the church has rolled out or for each committee/ministries to be named. Just a summary of how many albums and overview of the church activities should do. Some emphasis on activities which are reported in the local media is ok. Too many of the references are from the church website too further making the webpage look like a self-serving page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.16.20 (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that the list should be removed, for relevant guideline see this, this and this. However, if there is any album of particular notability, (won awards, significantly covered in news etc) it can be mentioned in that section.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

However, from the other wiki page Cross_(album), it has a list of songs which should be removed from that page. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that, the whole top portion of the article reads like some promotional advertising, and too much (i believe the wiki word is) peacock terms. Needs major editing. 5Proof (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the list of the recordings and productions has to be removed. Hm.. I think certain CD album like Cross_(album) should be mentioned in short words under the section "Recording & Stage Productions".

If no one has other things to add as to why this section should not be revamped, we shall proceed with the suggestions we have received so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.16.20 (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Awards
I suggest that the list of awards (e.g. Hitwise Award, ISO 9001:2001) should be removed as well. Pls advise. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest going through the list and list only those significant ones (with sources if possible). Xaiver0510 (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm.. I think that ISO 9001:2001 award should be mentioned as CHC is the first church to receive this award. However, its sources which are listed under the reference section are outdated/wrongly referred. Anyway, the Hitwise awards seem not important as these awards are for CHC's website. Kimberry352 (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the Hitwise awards seem not important as these awards are for CHC's website- I agree on this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.16.20 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ISO 9001:2001 award was already mentioned under the History section, so the list of awards should be removed. Pls advise if the particular award "3rd Annual Intelligent20 Award" should be removed as well. Displaying the whole list of awards could be seen as "peacock" words. Maybe anyone can volunteer to write the phrases about this award "3rd Annual Intelligent20 Award"? Kimberry352 (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Publications
"On 1 April 2009, Harvest Times launched its monthly online edition and is available at www.harvesttimes.com.sg." --> This sentence seems to promote the website of Haverst Times in this Wiki page. It has to be deleted. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.16.20 (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement of the online launch can remain. However, the URL definitely has to go.Zhanzhao (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Harvest Times has ceased publication. It has been replaced with something else but I cannot find how this new publication is related to the church directly. If this new media is to be mentioned, it has to have direct connection to the church to justify its mention on the church webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.16.20 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the suggested sentence should be "On 1 April 2009, Harvest Times launched its monthly online edition but it has been stopped publishing both hardcopy and online editions from January 2010 onwards. It was replaced by CityNews." The URL should be removed. Ok?Kimberry352 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We have to decide where to draw the line on what contents to be made available on the page. We don't know how this new publication is related to the church and until we can be affirmative on this, I feel it's best to leave it out for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.43.58.221 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy / Dispute resolution
As per discussed, it is mentioned that we should reach an agreement about the Controversy section. Has anyone submitted it to the Dispute resolution?

In the meantime, before an agreement is reached, i have combined the building part together in the same section.

Eugene22 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you deleted it outright, even though it has been made abundantly clear to you that there is absolutely no consensus for doing so. Jpatokal (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not deleted the controversy section on building outright, but have appended it to the "Building" section. And no one has replied my question if anyone has submitted a ticket for this article to the "Dispute Resolution"?


 * You deleted the section about Benny Hinn not just once, but twice . Jpatokal (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The definition of controversy is "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." With regard to this matter, it is not so much of a matter of opinion but it was more of questions asked regarding the building, and the questions have been answered. Just as it was pointed out there are individuals who are against the deal, there are others who think that the deal is a wise move. Eg: Knight Frank group managing director Danny Yeo said "the acquisition was a good alternative to buying a plot of land." (as quoted from The Sunday Times on 07 Mar 2010)

And with regards to Benny Hinn, I don't see the reason to include him to City Harvest article as he was simply a guest speaker in 2008. Moreever, he has not come back as a guest speaker to City Harvest since then. Are we going to mention him in every wikipedia article of organizations that he spoke in?

Eugene22 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene, I have warned you about 3RR so you should take the hint and let some other editor speak instead of domineering this article. Leave the section as it is until we can decide, this is your final warning. Take heed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * dave, i do not think i have domineered this article as much as those trying to add in stuff. There is repeated mention of reaching an agreement, but how is it being done? And I think we should not include "malicious" stuff about the Church till its agreed? And like what I asked many times ... how is the agreement going to be reached? Eugene22 (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the point made is clear and valid. The issue here is that the insertion does not deserve to be under section titled "Controversy" simply because it is not. Rather, merely opinion of individuals or someone trying to conjure controversy. Statements has been issued from the organization and nothing done is not above board or illegal as mentioned. It's has been been explained and details given to the relevant authorities thereafter. There is no theory here but about intimidated individuals who are not in favor and does not understand the mechanism of the deal. To begin with, the first sentence is already "loaded" by whoever wrote it. Veronta (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. You're under the common mistaken impression that Wikipedia's job is to report The Truth (and, apparently, that the church is True and its critics are False). That's not the case: under NPOV, Wikipedia describes all relevant views, both those of the church and its critics.  You cannot argue that there was no controversy, since there are plenty of reliable sources stating that there was, in fact, a controversy about the church's actions. Jpatokal (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't get what I am trying to say. So what is the concluded controversy here with regards to the Suntec building deal? The media has already reported and explained. This para should be under Church Building. And yes, Wikipedia is not to document on "concealed" truth. But this the true of the matter, matter of facts put forth.  Individuals questioned if a tax exempted organization will be exempted from tax if it has business dealing? And the answer is no, the business will be taxed because it's under a non exempted holding company.   Veronta (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the context of the building, this insertion should be a continuation of the para started off under the Church Building section. This is a big news worth mention so it makes sense. But the reason it's under controversy is because you have a notion, a concept or belief that it is. You must have the sources to show it before you titled it else it's misleading. Your opinion that it is a controversy does not stand.  The individual critics who gave their views does not represent the public, neither are those who wrote in the forums. More importantly, they do not represent the authorities and the governing bodies of charitable organizations.  If you are to describe all relevant views, then you should also research and know that they are those who know its a good thing. You can shout and yell all you want that an Apple is an Orange, or write to the media, forums etc. An Apple an Apple.


 * Truth is that which in accordance in fact and reality, it's not a belief that is accepted as true. Individuals of the public is not the public, but representative can be the government or relevant authorities in their communities. In this case, Commissioner of Charities and Urban Redevelopment Authority. What they approved and what they say count, and not what you believed in what individual critics said. Please have a clear mind.
 * Sg blogger (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I repeat: You're under the common mistaken impression that Wikipedia's job is to report The Truth (and, apparently, that the church is True and its critics are False). That's not the case: under NPOV, Wikipedia describes all relevant views, both those of the church and its critics.  You cannot argue that there was no controversy, since there are plenty of reliable sources stating that there was, in fact, a controversy about the church's actions.  Jpatokal (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jpatokal, you have not answered the question posed by either Veronta or me. What makes this paragraph a controversy? Because you have a notion or an opinion that it is one? Can you state your case why is it a controversy?


 * I've already answered it twice: there are numerous reliable sources (AsiaOne, Today, Straits Times etc) saying that the purchase was controversial. Rhetorical question: would this have made the news if it was not controversial? Jpatokal (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I believed you are not a resident of Singapore? Not all news appeared in Singapore are controversial news, even a dying cat or a burnt car will appear in the news.  We are a very small country with only one printing press.  And in no way did the news mention that the purchased is controversial. It's your interpretation of it.
 * Sg blogger (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a resident of Singapore, which also means that I'm perfectly aware that the local press treats anything to do with religion with kid gloves.


 * Also, the definition of controversy is "A debate, discussion of opposing opinions". Tell me, did we have a debate, discussion of opposing opinions in the news? Jpatokal (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of removing the relevant views, either of the Church or the Critics. But I think that the insertion should be a continuation of the para started off under the Church Building section and not under a new section heading.


 * I have also reworded it to give it a balance view.


 * Sg blogger (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you have whitewashed it so that the Church's view is presented first and the controversy is played down. The chronological order of events was:
 * A) Church makes purchase.
 * B) The Commissioner of Charities, the URA and members of the public raise questions about the purchase.
 * C) The church attempts to justify explain the purchase.
 * This is also the order that Wikipedia should use. Jpatokal (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No attempts were made to whitewash it. You may add on to my write-up if you like. And the order is still correct... but you interpreted in your own view that it's controversy. The church is not attempting to justify the purchase. The purchase is a done deal, a legal and proper deal.  No justification is needed to make it right or reasonable.


 * The questions raised was if as a charitable organization escaped tax from doing business? The answer is no, the charitable organization will not escape tax because the purchase is made through a holding company which will be taxable. It is about the mechanism of the deal that had been revealed.


 * Sg blogger (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The previous version of the article is the consensus version, and you're attempting to change it. The onus is thus on you to justify your changes, and you're doing a very bad job of it. Jpatokal (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How do we know that is the consensus version? Even if so, I am only trying to add in a balanced view. I am not removing any facts from the article itself.


 * Sg blogger (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jpatokal, until now you are just contributing based on your own views. You have also removed the relevants sources which provided the balanced view to the para.  And up till now, you have not indicate what is the controversy stated. Please argue on the arguments. Veronta (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, what sources have I removed? And the controversy is, quite obviously, that many people think the church should not be investing its funds in shopping malls, while the church apparently thinks it should be. Jpatokal (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * why did you keep removing the balanced view that I am trying to bring into the article? You removed the part of my writeup which Eugene22 had restored based on no sources. I based the sentence on the full story of the newspaper article under reference 39 which was given in the article itself.


 * No such quote is given in the AsiaOne article. If you wish to use another article as a reference, then you'll need to dig it up. Jpatokal (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I copied and paste the wrong sources. It should be the one on "The Sunday Times" on 07/03/2010. It is on page 1.


 * Sg blogger (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And how do you arrive the conclusion that many people think the church should not be investing in Suntec?


 * Sg blogger (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Questions surfaced among the public about whether religious organisations - which are registered as charities - should be allowed to go into business using what are essentially donor funds." Jpatokal (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly as stated (please do not deduced your own conclusions), just because there are individuals who questioned, it does not mean that the whole public disagree and hence controversial (see definition stated previously). Note, these individuals are not representatives of any kind (government, statuary boards, institution).  They are also not famous or reputable.


 * CHC is not the first religious or non-profit organisation that has used its donor funds to invest. Many religious and non profit organisations have used donor funds to invest and fund their philanthropic activities. Under Singapore Charities Act “Use of Donations”, it is stated that “an institution of a public character may invest any donation that is not immediately required for use for any purpose or activity referred to in paragraphs (2) to (5) in such investments as are permitted by law.” (http://www.charities.gov.sg/charity/html/Press%20Releases/070089%20-%20Charities%20(IPC)%20Regulations%202007.pdf).


 * Most importantly, the Commissioner of Charities did not disagree or in anyway deemed it wrong. Individuals in the public who for the lack of understanding and knowledge in the mechanism of a policy or deal, does not constitute it as controversial. For example, if there are some individuals in the public that disagree with the COE system or the housing COV, can we then conclude it as controversial on the public character?


 * As such, why is there a controversy in your opinion? Isn't you are just one of those individuals on the street, lacking? Shouldn't we do fact finding and do due diligence when contributing to an wiki article?


 * Sg blogger (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sg blogger, what about the Benny Hinn section? As brought up before, I don't see the reason to include him to City Harvest article as he was simply a guest speaker in 2008. Moreever, he has not come back as a guest speaker to City Harvest since then. Are we going to mention him in every wikipedia article of organizations that he spoke in? Eugene22 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jpatokal, that is not exactly true to say that the previous version is the consensus version. I have voiced out against it several times along with some others. And I have been asking how to reach a consensus or a vote which nobody has answered me. Eugene22 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I presume you're new to Wikipedia?  It certainly appears that you've never edited any articles othan than CHC.  There are no "votes" here (see WP:POLL), and you have "consensus" (WP:CONSENSUS) when enough people agree on the content. Jpatokal (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering the original title of the source used in the original article: "Details could not be disclosed, says church", and to put the church's statement in context, the article should also mention that the church's claim that they were under a non-disclosure agreement which prevented them from releasing full details of the transaction to the public.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This sounds good.


 * Sg blogger (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And oh, here's Today on the new allegations: The allegations, as it turns out, have nothing to do with another piece of controversy'' for which the megachurch - which has a congregation of 33,000 - made headlines in March. City Harvest's indirect $310-million stake in Suntec Singapore...''  So there it is, in black and white, and I'm looking forward to reading your convoluted "clarifications" about why it's not! Jpatokal (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the suntec investment is a controversy. This very discussion would not happen if it were not controversial. The current investigation does not fit into the definition of controversy. It is a fact i.e. legal investigation is being made. It should be a separate section from controversy. Proposing a new section titled 'legal issues'. Devortex (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But why is the investment a controversy? CHC is not the first church to make investments.


 * Sg blogger (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up
The article does not need specific quotes from "people on the street" interviews. Not unless the quotes are from someone noteworthy to the article i.e. legal advisors, Suntec management or official church representatives.

It also does not need some of the unnecessary detail like how many letters were written. For one, no one is counting (I'm sure the number has fluctuated). And it was already mentioned that there were questions raised by the public. Letters to the papers is just one of the means which the questions were raised. Adding the detail only pads the article section length.

Also please avoid writting that is potentially misleading. There is a difference between using "the public" and "among the public". One implies unanimity of opinion whereas another implies an opinion of a subsection of the populace.

Also please use good sources as per Wiki policy. Blogs, as in the case of Temasekreview.com, are generally not allowed.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blogs, as in the case of Temasekreview.com- I wish to correct this. It is an alternative media with a section for personal opinions in it but not a blog as you have said.120.17.213.39 (talk)
 * It describes itself as a newsite and blog on its own site. Since they themselves do not make a clear distinction of which content is which, by all intent and purposes it will be treated as one.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much detail
Note that Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate repository of information. Having a sumarized writeup would be sufficient. If you feel that you need to add more info, do it in a more concise manner. Right now the whole section on "Profile" is filled with too much detail that is practically self promotion. The same with "ministries" and "Culture". See articles on other religious organizations (Not just Singapore ones, or just focused on Christian churches) to have a better idea of how much detail you are to limit yourself to. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. A LOT of editing is required. I am going to try and edit this section by section, yet still keeping key information intact. Please note that this is entirely neutral editing and I am doing it purely for the sake of having better and more concise text. Cornfleur (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Too much demographic detail in the opening paragraph. Why are the demographics of the church presented in the opening paragraph? More relevant information would be as such:
 * the word "largest" mentioned 3 times
 * "It is the largest independent church in Singapore, with a database name list of 32,731 and a monthly average of 28,134 attendees in its weekend services.[3] The church's highest record attendance was 57,691 during City Harvest's Christmas services in 2008. 47.3% of its members are below the age of 25 years.[4]"
 * who founded the church?
 * in when and where?

Propose to move the demographic information to other sections or even to a new section titled demographics. Why is there a need to mention the highest record attendance? Should we put the lowest record attendance as well? What about attendance on valentine's day, christmas, chinese new year etc. Unless this contributes value to the article. (Note: the church has been described as largest megachurch already). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devortex (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding "non-denominational" to list of descriptors in opening paragraph. A megachurch may have denominations eg Southern Baptist etc. Please refer to the wiki article on megachurch for more information. Denomination of a church is information that is important and hence put in the opening paragraph.Devortex (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Pursuant to above, I'm adding in the details of when the church was founded and by who, in the opening paragraph. I believe this is important information.Devortex (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Entry regarding Directorship in Fashion Outlet
Ahnan keeps adding the line back in despite it being irrelevant to the article and in this case the section). This is an article about the church, not specific persons; and the section is an article about controversies related to a specific investigation where no official link has been drawn yet from any source. Unless there are reliable references and sources that prove the relevance of the that line to the article and the section, it should not remain. Counter-questioning a fellow editor that "how do I know if it is NOT relevant" is not a viable arguement as the onus is on the editor (Ahnan) who added the content to show the relevance and connection.121.7.249.158 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you say this is not relevant when is about Kong Hee! Kong Hee is the founder and senior pastor of the church, is he not???? Ahnan (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that Kong Hee, a pastor of CHC, is also a director of a fashion company. This fact has to be laid down and let the readers draw their own conclusion. You are the one trying to distort the truth by hiding potentially embarrassing facts of Kong Hee and CHC !!!! Ahnan (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the specific information about his fashion company should be included in Kong Hee wiki page. Unless there will be more mature development of the articles in near future, we should adopt a wait and see attitude. If the COC and CAD discover new upcoming evidence to support this information, the relevant information should be added in this City Harvest Church section instead. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, the article is about the church, not the pastor. If you only wish for the fact to be laid down, you can try putting it somewhere else on the article, under a differend heading. Putting it under the current heading and content carries with it an implication that the mention is related, and against NPOV. Unless you have a specific reason for putting it here?219.74.56.85 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the "facts" can speak for themselves, it would not matter where that "fact" is placed. Not unless there is some conclusion to be drawn between the point being made and the article where it was made. Especially in this case where the topic is on investigations of businesses, the point about the subject owning a business placed here implies that particular business is one of the businesses being investigated. Even if it might be the case, until a reliable source can be given showing the connection, the opoint should be ommited. If there is no reliable source and a point is made for the sake of an editor wanting it to be made, the rationale behind adding that point is biased. So adding that last line NOW is actually POV-pushing. But if updated news/references show a link/connection, feel free to add it in at that point of time. DanS76 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on this -- Kong's fashion business has no direct relevance to CHC or the current investigation. Jpatokal (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. But I would like the fact that he is running a fashion business outside the church be entered into wiki entry of CHC. Even though this is about him in another business, but being the senior pastor of CHC, it still concerns the public, especially new people who are about to make a choice to attend CHC. I mean for some people, they may mind joining a church whose pastor seems to be running "funny" businesses all over the shop. Putting the pastor's linkage to his non-church businesses here will help readers in their research to see if CHC is suitable for them to attend. We let the readers decide for themselves if they mind their pastor doing other "funny" businesses or not but at least, we are stating them as facts here. Hence, a church and its pastor cannot be separated. Ahnan (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To give another example, supposed a pastor is a convicted pedophile before. It's important to disclose this cause people will be worried if they would want their kids to attend such a church. You can't say the matter concerns only the pastor and not the church! Ahnan (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As you would know if you actually read the article, Kong resigned his paid positions at the church in Nov 2005 and now serves as an "honorary senior pastor", so yes, what he does does not necessarily concern the church. Jpatokal (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not true. The main point is, he is still giving sermons to thousands every week! It DOES concern the church! Ahnan (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm not if you are aware but in Singapore, CHC is synonymous to Kong Hee. This is a crucial point. Ahnan (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jpatokal, put it this way. If Kong Hee is completely out of CHC and has got nothing to do with CHC, you think the police will bother with him? Ahnan (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the police will look into anybody involved in "possible falsification of accounts and criminal breach of trust amounting to millions of dollars"!


 * But you're missing the point here. The police are, apparently, investigating Kong Hee personally and the church and its linked companies as an organization, but there are simply no reliable sources attesting that Kong's fashion businesses are on this list. Jpatokal (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that Kong Hee's role as a businessman is not directly relevant here. Maybe you can add it to his own wiki page? Or you may want to add new content referenced by recent straits times article on how it is "not an ordinary church" and include points on why. This can go into the controversy section or a new section. Then you can add reasons why the church is not ordinary. And then I'd imagine that Kong Hee's role as a businessman will be relevant in this section as one of the reasons why it isn't.Devortex (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that a pastor is not devoting his time fully in spiritual matters and spends his other time in completely unrelated businesses is already controversial itself. People have the right to know and hence decide if they still want to attend such church led by such business minded pastor. Wouldn't you say so? Ahnan (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, let's for argument sake. Say the pastor is also operating a legal brothel as a business outside the church. Don't you think this is info is material to this CHC entry? Or are you going to say it's got nothing to do with the church. It's his own business??? Ahnan (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stay civil and remember WP:BLP -- equating people with pedophiles and pimps is not appropriate.


 * Pls read carefully. I did not equate anyone as pedophiles or pimps. I'm merely quoting examples to use as argument. Ahnan (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But this all boils down to reliable sources. Do we have any sources that state that the investigation has anything to do with Kong Hee's fashion business?  Do we have any sources stating that Kong's fashion business has been a source of controversy?  As far as I'm aware, the answer is no.


 * I'm not say that the investigation has got anything to do with his fashion business. We do not know yet. I'm saying we should put this in wiki, i.e., the fact that the pastor of a church is having a unrelated outside business. You cannot argue that this does not concern the church. To me and many netizens buzzing on the net, this fact is a controversy. Just read thru all the usual SG forum sites on the net. Even if you do not want to put this fact in the controversy section, I'd still strongly support writing it in CHC wiki somewhere else... Ahnan (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, one angle the article currently ignores is the reason why Kong officially resigned his paid positions back in 2005: odds are this was precisely to avoid accusations of conflict of interest. Why not go dig up some sources from that time and find out? Jpatokal (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will if I have the source to back me up. But right now, I have the source (ST newspaper) to back me up that Kong runs a fashion business outside the church. I seriously didn't know about this beforehand. Now, even Christians from other churches are questioning the commitment of Kong Hee as a pastor. People cannot fathom the connection between giving spiritual help to his flock and running a trendy fashion business. Ahnan (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not isolate relevance of the sources from verifiability of these sources. Study the relationship between many entities (e.g. Kong Hee, fashion business, alleged accusation/fraud, etc) before making the conclusion. Right evidences with right sources are welcome. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah Ms Kimberry, you are a member of CHC, are you not? HAHA! Pls read my comments above. I didn't say his fashion business is connected to the fraud investigation of the chruch. It may or may not be. We shall wait for further reports from police and I can assure you that all the police actions on the church and Kong will be duly reported here by me. There is no where to hide! Now back to the fashion business, I'm of adamant that his connection to the fashion business be revealed here. This has already been verified. Let the public decide if it's alright for a pastor of a church to be running a fashion business too. But at least we are revealing the fact here. You seem all out to want to hide this fact. Too embarrassing for your almighty Pastor Kong??? Ahnan (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind your e-manners when posting the message on this talk page. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to confirm again if you are a CHC member and you question my manners? It's just a simple Yes or No answer. What's do difficult for you to say it out for the rest for the editors here to know? Ahnan (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, are you a supporter of Singapore Democratic Party? It's your choice to answer my question honestly. If necessary, you don't have to answer mine. P.S. This moral point is to protect yourself from the cyber internet (i.e. giving out private/personal information) (P.S.S.: Sorry for being off-topic). Kimberry352 (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not a member of SDP. The reason I'm asking you if you're a member of CHC or not is because there is a wiki's conflict of interest policy to adhere to. Hence, if you are a member of CHC, your disclosure will allow other editors to take it into account when they are reviewing what you have written here for CHC's entry. It's got nothing to do with privacy issue. I'm not asking for your name or IC number here. You follow? Ahnan (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry. Being a member is different from being a supporter. Regarding the rest of the sentences above your post, no comment. Kimberry352 (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But you attend CHC from time to time? Ahnan (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the topic about the disputed entry about Kong Hee's directship in fashion outlet? Kimberry352 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of absolutely every trivia under the sun. It has to follow Wiki's rules of notability and context among other things. I.e. if you think its so important to add KH's relationship to SKIN, put some effort in and explain WHERE would be a logical place in teh article to place it and WHY it should belong there. As mentioned, the previous location of the point is obviously unacceptable, as pointed out by various editors here. Creating another subheading just to put that line in is too much of a overkill and practically borders on COATRACKING. If you wish to put that point into Wikipedia, follow wikipedia rules for your edits.DanS76 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine if KH's business in Skin Couture is not written in the para concerning his investigation. Perhaps other editors here can help to decide where to put this point in. Ahnan (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding COC/Police Investigations
As quoted in the original article, "MediaCorp understands, rather, that the authorities are looking into specific incidences that could involve the possible falsification of accounts and criminal breach trust, involving sums that amount to millions of dollars and transactions that date back years." That is not a viewpoint but a reported news. Most likely a Mediacorp reporter raised a question after the original official press statment was made, and the reply led to this summation. For a comparison, the NKF investigation had many updates through the history out side official press statements but were entered into wikipedia based on their acceptance as RS when reported by the mainstream media. To make it explicitely clear however, the statement can be qualified by mentioning that it was a point made by the media rather than official statements. Viewpoints from the media usually appear as editorials, and can be easily differentiated by the tone, whih is not the case here.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The keyword here is "possible". It is your assumption that a reply from the authority led to this summation. Besides, it is only "possible", and it is not a fact. Hence it is not necessary to include something that is not conclusive. Eugene22 (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The FACT here is, MediaCorp reported it as a news piece and not as an editorial, which disqualifies it from being a viewpoint, so your point is moot. The investigation is to cover those points.Following your logic, we would have to remove the whole section on the investigation because no crime has been proved yet. Note that the writeup is on the investigation and its particulars, not of whether they are guilty of the "possible falsification of accounts and criminal breach trust, involving sums that amount to millions of dollars and transactions that date back years". Zhanzhao (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, "possible" here means there possibility of guilt of those charges, not the possibility of whether they are being investigated on those points. Read the exect quote from the news article above carefully. Mediacorp reports that they ARE being investigated on those charges.Zhanzhao (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets mate this clearer. There is a difference between "There is a possible investigation of a fraud" and "There is a investigation on a possible fraud". The first says there is a chance of an investigation. The 2nd says the investigation confirmed, only the crime is not. In the quote above it is clearly the 2nd case. Or else the original report would have said that "authorities are possibly looking into specific incidences that could involve the possible falsification of accounts and criminal breach trust"DanS76 (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to specifically mention that investigations are ongoing or what is confirmed/not confirmed. You are merely making the article longer than it needs to be, and giving it undue weight to it. Please see how other wikipedia articles approach ongoing investigations. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Zhanzhao, I feel that as long the additions are balanced, it can be included. When you include in "possible falsification of accounts and criminal breach trust", it sounded the article is from the Media side to stir up speculation. That is why I feel the "non-conclusive" part should be added in to bring in the balance to the article, to uphold the stardard of Wikipedia. Eugene22 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing yourself here on a few points. 1st, the "possible" part is about the possibility of guilt, which is understandable in this case since an investigation is in place. If there was no existing investigation, but MediaCorp reported that the police MIGHT POSSIBLY investigate them, then yes, they are stirring up speculation of an investigation. That is clearly not the case here. The only thing they are stirring up is the speculation of possible guilt, which the authorities have already done so by initiating the investigation in the first place. 2nd, Adding the line as it is of being not conclusive is akin to adding a "to be continued" at the end of the article, which is bad procedure here. Please give wikipedia readers some credit and assume that they can tell that where there is no verdict, once can assume that the investigation is ongoing. I.e. If a year of death is not stated on a person's bio, one generally assumes that person is alive, and the article does not need a "cause of death is unknown" statement. As a compromise, I have ammended the text so that it is apparent that investigations are ongoing by using the authorities permission for the church body to continue regular activities as a context for the statement. But I expect other senior editors may have a better idea on how to improve the neutrality of the statement. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Zhanzhao, you mentioned to Eugene22 that it is necessary to include "possible falsification of accounts and criminal breach trust, involving sums that amount to millions of dollars and transactions that date back years". I am in two minds about this. My point is that when the police statement has already stated what it is investigating, which is the possible misuse of funds, why should we include this point the Mediacorp brought up?


 * But since you have included that in, why is it not necessary to put in that investigations are still underway? Without this statement, Wikipedia readers would not understand what is the outcome of this matter because this paragraph is not conclusive


 * Sg blogger (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sg blogger, my point was not that the specifics of the investigations was absolutely necessary (Though it does give more useful information about the investigation), but rather that his rationale for removing that point was flawed: He thought the additional detail was an opinion piece when it was actually being reported as news, and removed it based on that wrong assumption. Since the removal was made based on a wrong assumption, the corrective measure is to revert it.


 * As for the second point about removing the part mentioning that investigations are not conclusive, its standard wikipedia procedure regarding ongoing investigations. Editors in the past on other articles have already debated on this and agreed that specifically pointing out that investigations are still ongoing could be seen as a defensive statement (hence straying into POV pushing), and unnecessary since the lack of any verdict tells the reader the investigation has obviously not ended. A recent example would be the Shi Ming Yi article where investigations were ongoing for about 2 years. In the article about the monk, there was no mention in the article that investigations were ongoing throughout the duration of the trial. An exception however is when the statement is important as a context to another point. In the Ren Ci article, it was mentioned that investigations were still onging which resulted initially resulted in their COC charter being suspended, then resumed in spite of ongoing investigations. In that case, the COC charter was the important point, and the point about ongoing investigation was made to compliment it. As mentioned, refer to how other articles handle ongoing investigations. They may not all be right, but since those are being monitored by other editors as well, most will give a generally good idea on what is useful or redundant for such articles.Zhanzhao (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sg blogger & Eugene22, if you are members of CHC, this will be a good time for your to tell the truth and disclose yourselves so that we know where you are coming from. Ahnan (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Ahnan, are you anti-CHC? I think there is a conflict of interest here. Eugene22 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * -> Ahnan, I am afraid that if i'm not wrong, I think that you have a 'job' to co-erce those whom you suspect to be members of any organisations/companies, huh? Pls correct me if necessary. P.S. Please let all of ourselves show regards for others in manners, writing or behaviour. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No coercion here. Just basic courtesy to disclose yourself if you have a conflict of interest. It's just a simple Yes or No question. Ahnan (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those who have conflict of interest should be encouraged to refrain from editing the disputable wiki articles. Anyway, it's interesting to read the threads posted by you in the off-wiki forum. It would be nice if you help contribute information with right sources in other Wiki articles (different from church-related articles). Else, I'm afraid that your wiki account might be assumed that it has a single purpose. Thanks. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cause of Investigation
I don't see why the cause of the investigation should be removed, as it is properly referenced. To Eugene22, the source states that although it might be true that there is nothing wrong legally with the constitution not allowing members to its AGM, the organization has to explain why it did not comply to to the code of COC due to the lack of transparency. DanS76 might have been wrong to label it a "cause" of the investigation, but chronologically the investigation did start after, or following, the complaints to the COC.Zhanzhao (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You mentioned that the "News reports it as the cause of the investigation.". May I know which paragraph is that? Besides, i see no reason why this sentence has to be included inside the Fund Probe, especially when there is nothing wrong with the constitution. Constitutions have to be approve by Registar of Societies and another body if I am not wrong. Please do not put it inside Wikipedia simply one member is unhappy.Eugene22 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wiki article currently states that the investigation followed the requests by church members -- it does not claim they were the reason for the investigation. Jpatokal (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Dan, ZhanZhao and Jpatokal :) Ahnan (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As brought up in an earlier post, is there a need to put this under "Fund Probe"? There isn't a need to put in every single details that newspaper brough up? Eugene22 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The only conclusive thing about the previous discussion was that it was not suitable as a subsection by itself. It does provide context about the investigation though so I don't see any issue with it being there.Zhanzhao (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Who says we are bringing in every single details the newspaper brought up? Besides, the newspapers are just reporting news. It's CHC that's creating the news... Ahnan (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Only one "small" newspaper reported "that" news. Strait Times and the Chinese papers did not ever make mention. Eugene22 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This "small" newspaper happens to be the 2nd most read English newspaper in Singapore. See the article on Today. In any case, if you wish to debate on the size, its readership is greater than that of the City Harvest publications, which are being sourced for much of the content on the church article. I'm not against sourcing from the church article, just making a point that using "size" as a rationale here is not a good idea.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * EXCELLENT POINT, Zhanzhao! Ahnan (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please keep to the necessary detail and not needlessly pad the article. I.e. number people questioned only needs to be mentioned once. If no arrests have been made, the fact need not be pointed out explicitly as it understood. Same with mention of legal representation, which is common for people being investigated (see the Durai and Ming Yi who also had legal representation). Unless the mention has any special meaning (i.e. the lawyer has done anything that is notable in the context of the article).

CHC teams providing aid for Haiti Earthquake in Jan 2010
"When the Haiti Earthquake happened in January 2010, City Harvest Church is one of the first few organisations in Singapore to send their teams half a world away to Haiti. Not even Singapore Red Cross Society are doing so." - previous editing done by 116.197.231.130 @ [] --> Hi 116.197.231.130‎, where did you find this statement from? How to prove it (e.g. reliable sources)? If it is not proven, I think that it should be removed from the CHC wiki article completely. Otherwise, it should be under new section (e.g. Outreach/CHC Team Aid). By the way, if i'm not wrong, I heard that CHC teams also provided their aids to Sichuan earthquake victims in 2008. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Benny Hinn isnt a controversy
so why do you include in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.104.5.184 (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you refer "you" to your question? So far I remembered, the inclusion of this Benny Hinn controversy was initiated by Ahnan. Refer to [], it has citations/references for supporting the evidence. However, if you feel that it is not significant, you may discuss on this page. The last time Benny Hinn was being invited by CHC to Asia Conference was late 2008, I think.. Kimberry352 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)