Talk:Lakeland revival/Archive 1

Suggestions

This revival is a short-term event, recently iniciated and without committed funding, that may be unencyclopedic by nature. For the claims made, more and better references are needed. The text is written like a fan letter and needs a more balanced approach. Geographical location is not precise, and visitors' options are not given.--Wloveral (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand your argument. Since when does Wikipedia exclude events because they're short-term, recent, unfunded? I agree that more references could help, as well as some further (balanced) expansion of the article. But this is a noteworthy event, being televised globally, talked about in Europe, Australia and elsewhere (there's talk of it throughout my bible college in Melbourne, for example). It IS of global interest. And what do you mean about visitors' options? — SimonEast (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the event is unencyclopedic, and the entry reads as though written by an entirely credulous fanboy/girl to boot. 71.109.39.108 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the latest in a series of similar incidents - like the Toronto Blessing - and should be recorded somewhere as examples of humanities foibles. I have started discussions about this at iidb, skepticforum, james randi and talk rational - someone else can write it all up!

Their choice of artwork - people blowing ramshorns is of academic interest by itself!

Clive Durdle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.222.230 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies I am new at editing wiki and therefore do not understand the protocols,

Please find below links to discussions I have started about this, some are a bit confused but there is valuable stuff in there (including miracles of gold teeth!

I was horrified at the VERY BIAS and one sided paragraph against the revival. It is disgusting only because the other side of the story has been presented and defended to a much lesser degree. Either delete it or shorten it, the latter being more acceptable.

again, there should be an article about this, I don't know where, possibly pentecostal sects 2008 or something.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115436

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=243375

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=9821

http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=2190

--82.12.222.230 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Clive Durdle

God TV is now in financial difficulties because of this, there are plans for Todd Bentley to come to Birmingham UK, and there are stories of a woman's husband's finger regrowing.

This is definitely of historical import - possibly under comedy!

Clive Durdle --82.12.222.230 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This entry appears to be a tug of war between fans and critics, would editors please strive in this environment to ensure the highest levels of impartiality and to ensure that bias entries are cleaned up and improperly deleted parts are restored. --Mbacina (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The material you restored largely relies on self-published sources (freshfire.ca, elijahlist.com), original research (assertions preceded by "attendees support" which doesn't refer to reliable published sources reporting on attendees' statements), and takes the form of commentary ("this is not correct," etc.) and advocacy and not a neutral point of view appropriate for Wikipedia. Thus I have again removed this material. It must not be restored without reference to reliable sources, and rewritten from a neutral point of view and with appropriate tone. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My entry was consistent with the guidelines and cited the article published by the ministry who RUN the revival in response to criticisms by others. This is a reliable source for the position of Lakeland on the claims of the dead being raised. The verifiable fact that the position is contrary to the facts underlying the claim is a matter of verifiable record, which is relevant to the content of the page and consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. There is no point of view. Dr Grieg's article is not correct. Thus I have undone your changes and re-edited to remove all references to attendee statements.Mbacina (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The only two sources for the individuals being "raised from the dead" are a Christian blog and a Christian online music magazine. If this is really happening it should be pretty easy to get some reliable third party sources on this. As it is this article is pretty slanted to one particular point of view - i.e. "this is a real Christian revival". This article really lacks much outside perspective.Brian0324 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If more validated information is required, please contact mediarelations@freshfire.ca as they have followed up on the "claims" of people being raised from the dead (which currently sits at over 20 people), along with collecting validated medical reports, blood tests, x-rays, etc for many of the healings including 8 inch metals rods disappearing from one person's back (x-ray), a girl with a fractured elbow being instantly healed (x-rays), a man with Hepatitis C going to a 0 count instantly (blood test). In fact I have already contacted them and asked them to provide the necessary documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.234.232 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

many are getting saved, set free, and healed as a result. Proof --DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming I read you right, and you are asking for proof of the truth of a claim that is in the article, you are asking the wrong question. The right question to ask first is "what reliable source(s) say(s) that?" The right question to ask second is "how do(es) that source(s) express it?" With those questions answered, then move on to "how should this article cover this information?". GRBerry 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the section which cited FreshFire's own publication as the source of the claim that people are being raised from the dead. I haven't seen any evidence of it, and I cited the claims and the underlying news report which relates to the only person named in the claims (Velma Thomas). Given that my section was entirely neutral (albiet under an IP address before I registered) - I'm very dissapointed at the removal of it. The citations were made to show that the claim was made, not to prove the claim itself. Given the claims made by the revival, an encyclopedic entry on the revival ought to draw together the sources citing the claims made, and any sources which provide evidence for or against the claim. That's what I have found in other wikipedia page entries. Mbacina (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mbacina. The section cited reports from ABC News and Fox News and it did not slant to one side of the issue so I don't understand why most of the section (which had sources) was removed and only a very small paragraph with no sources remains.Ltwin (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This Article Needs Major Revising

Read the article. It speaks for itself. If you want to contribute information backed up by reliable sources to this horrible mess, I beg of you, PLEASE do. Ltwin (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to use the sources identified in the following section, even if I'm not ready to write the article yet, there is good material in them. GRBerry 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)