Talk:Lakeland Revival/Archive 2

Reliable Sources
Ok, I'm starting a dive through reliable sources that are or have been used in the article, just to get a list of them. If you want to help find others via other methods such as library/print material research (unlikely for books, plausible for print media), web searching, et. cetera, feel free to chip in. If something is print only please give a full citation. If something is available online, please give a full citation including a link. Please don't remove anything; if need be move it to unclassified with a note explaining why you doubt it meets our standards. Note that blogs are almost never reliable by our standards, so don't include any without an explanation of why they (may) meet Wikipedia's standards. Do feel free to read blogs to see if they cite any reliable sources; I've found at least one source in the list below that way. Ultimately, I intend to do a complete article rewrite using these, but am asking for help with the sources to look at first - because our articles should be written from the overall balance of reliable sources. The classifications to help quickly sort likely biases of the sources. GRBerry 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At this time, I've checked from the version of 18:37 9 July 2008 last edited by Allemandtando backwards to the beginning. (Man, that edit of 22 June was a real bad one for the article's sourcing...) If there are further edits, I'll need to search forwards.  GRBerry 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 02:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also obviously need search for sources on my own. GRBerry 02:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Affiliates of the Revival
leaders, associated ministries, et cetera. There are special rules about use of self published sources, they have reliability for claims about themselves (e.g. attendance) if not controversial but not for claims about others (e.g. person X was healed), and can't be the source(s) for the majority of the article.
 * 1)  Revival webpage - self published source
 * 2)  Initially sponsoring/hosting church - self published source
 * 3) - published by a third party, so not as restricted by the WP:SELFPUB rules - for controversial claims can only be described as "T. Bentley said ..."

Other Christian Sources

 * 1) - blog by a magazine editor, published by his employer
 * 2) - blog by a magazine editor, published by his employer
 * 3) - blog by a magazine editor, published by his employer
 * 4) - blog by a magazine editor, published by his employer
 * 5) - blog by Christian denomination leader and published author
 * 6) - blog by Christian denomination leader and published author
 * 7) - blog by Christian denomination leader and published author
 * 8) - blog by reported published by employer
 * 1) - blog by Christian denomination leader and published author
 * 2) - blog by Christian denomination leader and published author
 * 3) - blog by reported published by employer

Secular Sources

 * 1) - although a blog, it is a blog by a reporter published by her employer, and hence at least arguably reliable
 * 2) Four published the same day and same paper:
 * 1) Four published the same day and same paper:
 * 1) Four published the same day and same paper:
 * 1) Four published the same day and same paper:
 * 1) Four published the same day and same paper:
 * 1) Four published the same day and same paper:
 * 1) Four published the same day and same paper:
 * 1) Four published the same day and same paper:

Unclassified Currently or Unreliable with paths to reliable sources

 * 1) Unreliable itself.  Definitely belongs in the external links section.
 * 2) Certainly reliable, but I haven't run it down to see if this is the first venue of publication (in which case Christian) or a second location.

Raising The Dead
I have watched the revival to GOD TV and I know that there have been claims made of the dead being raised. Whether they are true or not I do believe that as the claims have been made that if we can find them mentioned in reliable sources that the issue should be put in the article. I'm not suggesting we say that the dead have been raised, I'm just suggesting that we mention that Bentley is claiming the dead are being raised and let the readers decide for themselves.Ltwin (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I definitely think the section on this should return (not quite sure why it was deleted). Just needs to be kept NPOV, with clear distinctions between claims and verified reports. &mdash; SimonEast (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When I was digging through the article history, I did not find any reliable sources usable in this article for that section. There was a reliable source, but it 1) did not mention this revival at all and 2) was being used because a non-reliable source claimed that Bentley had mentioned as an example of God's healing power that individual's healing.  Even if the unreliable source in #2 were reliable, that combination would still not merit inclusion here.  That may have something to do with why it was removed.


 * I didn't read in full all the reliable sources that I found, but the only one that was focused on this sub-topic - and it is only arguably reliable so I am unsure if I'd use it for such a controversial claim - is the first listed blog post by Terry Virgo; #8 in above.  GRBerry 13:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * just to clarify - does the reports say he raised the dead or that it was done at the even he was at? --Allemandtando (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Working with the source I mention, a viewer of the program wrote "I was watching the Florida outpouring on God TV. ... Towards the end there were testimonies of the 15th person raised from the dead – one of which was reported by cell phone from Kenya!", that viewer (who is not the author of the source) later described a healing in Ghana that the viewer personally witnessed but was uncertain if it was a raising from the dead. That is the best I can do.
 * The subtopic would be interesting if it can be sourced, but we need to find better sourcing than I've thus far identified before we'll be able to write anything on this subject. And what we'll be able to write depends on what sourcing we find.  GRBerry 13:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're just looking for sources where they 'claim' the dead were raised, then that should be easy. The official email archives from Ignited Church should have heaps of that in there.  That should be enough to write about the claims.  And to clarify, from what I've seen on GOD TV, Todd hasn't seemed to claim responsibility for the resurrections, just reporting them as happened.  The 2 or 3 that I saw from the broadcast were third-parties that had prayed for a sick/dying friend/family member, they had died, and then later come back to life.
 * As for actual verified documentation of people coming back to life, then that may be more difficult. But the claims from the revival should still be included in the article. &mdash; SimonEast (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a news report from the Associated Press which mentions the claims(no verification). As the AP is pretty reliable and a third party I have added a sentence to the controversy section that reads "Bentley's most controversial claims consists of twenty cases where he says the dead have been raised." Ltwin (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Archived Previous Discussions
Hope no one minds me archiving the above sections as they were made when the article was very different. I do not think they are very useful to us now anyway.Ltwin (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is revival lower cased in Lakeland revival
Just wondering. Maybe someone who knows how to change article names can fix this.Ltwin (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are the sources describing a revival that is happening in Lakeland, Florida, or are the describing an organized event or phenomenon with the proper name "Lakeland Revival". If the former, then "Lakeland revival" is the proper title for now.  If the latter, "Lakeland Revival" is the proper title.  I see inconsistency in the usage on Wikipedia for other revivals.  However, Revivalism is consistent in captializing all of them.  And I only see one other article using a lowercase R in the title.


 * Changing article names is easy if 1) the destination is empty, 2) you are an autoconfirmed user (can edit semi-protected pages), and 3) the article is not specifically protected against moving. Go to the article, click on the move tab at the top, and fill out the new title and reason.  Keep the box checked to also move the talk page with it.  Check the box to move subpages of the talk page, so the talk archive will also get carried along.  Then press the "move page" button.  For a more verbose explanation, see Help:Moving a page.  GRBerry 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Reporting on criticism
Can I propose that we keep the criticism of the revival out of the introduction section? I think the article should be about the event itself, primarily, and the response/reactions to it can follow after. Ltwin, I noticed that you moved this information back up near the top. Do you mind if it's located further down in the article?

I'd like to see a balanced NPOV article where readers can understand the history, culture and claims of the revival, as well as an overview of widespread opinions (ie. not some obscure blog entry) that allow the reader to make up their own mind. At the moment, the negativity seems to hit you before you've really grasped what the revival is about. Anyone else have comments? &mdash; SimonEast (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well actually SimonEast I didn't move it back to the top I just left it where it was. I agree that the part about "Bam, Bam" and Emma the angel would belong more in the claims section. Those sentences were'nt orginally in the introduction, someone else moved them there. We do need to be careful that in the introduction the reader understands that there is controversy yet doesn't form a negative opinion of the subject based on the introduction alone. However, I think that the article as it stands now has been the most NPOV that it ever has been and has the most verifiable information. For that I congratulate everyone!Ltwin (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I was planning on changing the name of the article as right now the word "revival" in "Lakeland revival" is lowercased when I think the r should be capitalized. However, I was scared of deleting the archives when I moved the page, so I thought it best just to leave it alone. But if any of you guys agrees with me and knows how to move it without messing something be my guess. Oh and SimonEast feel free to change anything in the introduction if you want to!Ltwin (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is standard to introduce a controversial subject with mention of the controversy. After all that's what a good intro does. Though I agree with you, as it stands it could be cut back some and the rest moved to the claims section. NPOV doesn't mean being "nice," it means giving all significant views from WP:RS their fair share. We66er (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We66er, could you provide a sample article that introduces a controversial subject well, that we can perhaps base ours on? &mdash; SimonEast (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did pic go?
What happened to the picture? Anyway I think that the article would look better with pictures. What does anyone else think?Ltwin (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was deleted as s copyright violation. It was one.  GRBerry 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

TOC
Is there any particular reason why the table of contents is placed to the right of the page? Ltwin (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks so much better. But there is some rule about tocright not being used gratuitously. Sigh. Hyper3 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering as this is the first time Ive seen it like that. Ltwin (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found learning some layout code mildly amusing! Hyper3 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)