Talk:Todd Bentley

Bentley Divorce

Hi. In Canada to divorce one must become separated from the spouse for 9 months as a preliminary step. The Bentleys are currently in this step. Any one care to add this to the article? Thanks. http://www.theledger.com/article/20080812/NEWS/808120347&title=Evangelist_Bentley__Wife_File_for_Separation --98.243.129.181 (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The separation is already mentioned. Divorce is not appropriate to mention at this time. GRBerry 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, Joyner wrote [1] that the divorce has been finalized and Bentley has remarried. He must have filed back in June to comply with the Canadian nine-month requirement unless it was waived somehow. In any case a third-party reference for this beyond Joyner should be found and added if there's one out there. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike, can't find confirmation. Slashed this whole section. The moment the level of detail and information on a subject's personal life outweighs the actions and work that make a subject notable is the moment that the article has flipped into the "bad" column. Thanks for keeping it current - taking it at face value that the source for the remarriage is reputable, but very on-the-fence about all this since that page in no way meets level of standard. EBY (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the issues surrounding Bentley's marriage, divorce and re-marriage demand some sort of clear focus. This is because it is the key issue which many will use to assess his ministry. For evangelical Christians being a "one woman man" is a precondition for eldership or leadership due to texts in Timothy and Titus. This should also be explained for those outside the community, as otherwise the debate will be put down to prurience. By all means we should use the best sources and npov language. In an unfolding story, (like many of the articles on wikipedia that report the news) it will take time to get good sources. I think however, it is an error to cut the material entirely. Bentley is notable now as a holiness revivalist who has acted inappropriately and undercut his own moral platform: how the rest of the church deals with this is also notable. I don't think we can ignore it. But lets find the most appropriate way to report it. I would like to start putting things back into the article that have recently been cut, for editing rather than exclusion. Hyper3 (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyper3, You may know the standards to which the subject is being held "in community" but where are the reliable, notable THIRD PARTY SOURCES weighing Bentley's ministry against his personal life? Editors do not report - they must wait for professionals to do that, and then quote and extract from that information. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. WP:LIVE

Since Bentley is a living person, special care must be taken with this article that everything in it can be sourced responsibly, without synthesizing. EBY (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much contention about the facts, nor that a debate is taking place about them. Even Bentley wouldn't dispute much of what has been written. Hyper3 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you could help me to assess the various sources that you have removed, and why they are any worse than the source we are using for Bentley's marriage, Rick Joyner's site. The ones removed are: Fresh Fire, The Strang report which is Charisma magazine, Baptist Press, and Bill Johnson's site. I can see that some of these are more problematic than others, but surely the newspapers represent the sort of third party source we are looking for? Hyper3 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyper, as for the cuts: 2 issues to address. First: Look at the amount of personal information against the notable work of the subject. 3 paragraphs on ministry against 5 or 6 on his childhood and marriage? How much of this article is pure criticism? The meat of this article should be the assertion of the subject's work. NOT other people's opinions on it.

Bio:LP states; "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." What would bringing back any of the minutia of the subject's private life ADD to the article? Or would it just be sensationalism, belabouring the negativity of his choices against his ministry?

Second: As for sources: the Standard newspaper is all right, except that the quotes are NOT from the Standard but from a conservative blog on the Standard's website. Is that information held to encyclopedic standards? The piece from Joyner was written clearly from the opinion that Bentley is a worthwhile minister so quoting it will, in my best estimation, not leave Wikipedia open for a libel or slander claim. But it also is undermined by its own bias and lack of reputable support.

At the end of the day, I look at the article in toto for a gut check. Have the most salient and notable points of the subject's work and life choices been represented? Have the criticisms and praises been included - but not overstressed? EBY (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the points you are making about not being sensationalist or titillating; in most other cases this would apply. The issue here is that Bentley's work involves making claims about morality. His community bases its approach to authenticity on morality. Therefore Bentley's work and livelihood are intricately entwined with his own moral actions. They are not separable. I think your gut reaction is based on other biographical situations. It isn't wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, I understand,but this is relevant information.

WP:SELFPUB allows for questionable sources to be used about themselves: the Fresh Fire website gives information about its employee, Todd Bentley. Under this provision, I think Fresh Fire is valid. the Baptist newspaper is useful too. Hyper3 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of Bentley's past life issues and his current marital problems, these are worthy of being in the article. Bentley rose to prominance as the leader of the Lakeland Revival, before this no one had ever heard his name. However, when he left his wife for another woman this became as notable (maybe even more notable) then the revival he led. His past problems were very prominent issues during the revival as many evangelical and other Christian leaders were questioning his ministry because of them. His theology and time at Lakeland should of course make most of the article, but his marital problems written about in an NPOV way make up a very large part of his notability. Ltwin (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegations from a blog

Any takers? http://blogs.theledger.com/default.asp?item=2254115 98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I'm not an expert on the Ledger, but isn't that in the Opinion section and a blog at that? At first glance, that doesn't appear to meet the requirements for reliable sources. Shell ^babelfish 00:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the trail of breadcrumbs with the help of Google, you arrive at the primary source of Arnott's own website from which the quoted paragraph raising the issue of "excessive drinking" comes. http://www.tacf.org/tacforghome/Visitors/LakelandToddBentleyUpdate/tabid/761/Default.aspx Mike Doughney (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but still far from a reliable mainstream source. If this is the best reference for these allegations, they don't meet the requirements for inclusion yet. Shell ^babelfish 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking further into this - this seems to be a blog post commenting on another blog post which makes a single line mention of those allegations. So I'd agree they don't meet inclusion at the moment. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not like that; it's not just a blog post. Arnott is one of the 3 people who was allegedly supervising Todd Bentley (so-called "accountability relationship" and all that). This comes under the category of 'primary source' material. The article as it stands right now really needs to have the personal controversy pulled out of the 'personal life' section into some separate discussion of the current news and then provide some detail as to who these people are, and why given that previous relationship, Arnott's comments are significant. Who can keep track without a scorecard? Mike Doughney (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

you want to take a stab at re-organising it? --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The TACF is not a blog it is a charity which is recognised in the law. If the statement on their web page is not admissible then the statement attributed to the Fresh Fire directors regarding Bentley's resignation should also be removed. Dg32 ^{User_talk:Dg32} 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

what is the editorial process? what oversight is there? --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Just tell me why the statement from Fresh Fire Ministries (note 13) should stand but the one by the TACF should not? Dg32 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

maybe it shouldn't stand - I'll take a look and see if it needs to be removed. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually.. in regards to Bentley's drinking problem, it's a private counseling matter and doesn't belong on a wiki Bio of a living person regardless of who reported probably.. because it could very easily be slanderous. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gossip from blogs are not WP:RS and don't belong in the article. We66er (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the status of that article/blog entry is, but the writer is the religion editor for The Ledger, so I would consider him to be a fairly reliable source. GatorOne (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hearsay"

This article is written from hearsay only, because the writers were not present at a Todd Bentley meeting, nor know Todd and the ministry. That makes it biased. The article needs to include some first hand reports from some of the thousands of eyewitnesses who were there and experienced miracles. There are many, many documented healings. Many documented healings and miracles happened to people I personally know. Miracles are still happening everywhere because of what God did through Todd. Todd needs prayer to continue the greatness, not criticism which further destroys. Let's open our eyes and look for truth and first hand witness, before we decide, not hearsay.76.191.168.241 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to study Wikipedia policies before hurling charges of bias here. Namely, Wikipedia policies prohibit original research, articles must reflect a neutral point of view, and all included material must be attributed to a reliable, published source. If you are going to allege bias, making general claims that writers "haven't been there" and "don't know Todd" won't get you very far here. To quote from those policies, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Mike Doughney (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A Frontline investigation found no verifiable miracles.97.89.17.90 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By definition, miracles are unlikely to be verifiable by normal means, but that doesn't mean they don't happen. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Joel's army

The Joel's army section is not encyclopaedic. It shows no understanding of the roots of the Manifest Sons of God doctrine, George Warnock, Branham and others who preached it, nor it's significance today. I think it is an appropriate subject, but the newspaper article that is quoted does not do justice to the problem. I think this probably should be removed, but it would be best of something better was put in its place. Hyper3 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"The program's doctrine was associated to an idiosyncratic interpretation of Revelation 12 that in the last age before Jesus returns, there will be a generation of especially endowed Christians who will be able to do many miracles, and will usher in the reign of God." The Sanchez article certainly does not support that Bentley's views are "idiosyncratic." The Sanchez article suggests that this view is rather common (but dangerous in his opinion) among evangelical Christians. He supports this view by talking about pastors of magachurches who share this view, million seller books, large youth gatherings, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRittman (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the word "idiosyncratic" from the article because the primary sources do not support that this view is in any way peculiar to Todd Bentley. This is my first edit to a Wikipedia article. I hope the article is improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRittman (talk • contribs) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair to me; I suppose "idiosyncratic" isn't terribly encyclopedic, now is it... to be fair, it is possible to have something be both somewhat common and idiosyncratic (in the sense of it being odd). However, I agree that the question of whether or not said Biblical interpretation is "odd" is probably not a judgment that Wikipedia ought to be making; especially if the source itself does not address that question :) Thank you, -- Joren (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that "idiosyncratic" has two uses. It can describe something as unique to the individual or it can describe something as odd or strange. The latter definition would be obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia. Using such language to describe a religious movement (with a particular Biblical interpretation) would be similar to saying, "Islam is a strange religion." I am thankful for the response of someone more experienced. I appreciate any help.--MRittman (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Shorter version of Early Life

It has been suggested that the second paragraph is removed - why is this a good idea?Hyper3 (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it? He was convicted of the crimes - what more needs to be said but that? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bentley is a born-again Christian whose testimony of conversion from a former life of criminality is relevant to his message and who he is. The fact that we know more about that life than he himself disclosed is as relevant as the information itself. How the public came into possession of that knowledge is part of Bentley's social location, and is therefore of interest to scholars and those seeking accurate knowledge about him. His own comment about it is important too. However, I think the shoe should be on the other foot; and the anonymous editor should justify their position.Hyper3 (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact of his criminal life remained as did his conversion in the short version - so the essentials of who he is remain intact. The discussion of the magazines and/or reference articles that reported his background and how he responded to that report is irrelevant and is specified in the reference links themselves. I prefer to stick to the facts. Who reported what belongs as reference points, however, I married both the more concise first paragraph and left the second if you think that provides important information. I think it's immaterial and boring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the last time I've read this....

Since the last time I've read this article it has improved tremendously. Good job to all the editors who helped write this article.Ltwin (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm archiving this page if there are no objections.Ltwin (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Two spouses in info box?

Can anybody "involved" here please "fix" this before I have to? Thanks, --Tom 20:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I sort of misunderstood (thats a shock!). What is is marital "status"?? TIA--Tom 20:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tom 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bentley's current involvement with Fresh Fire

Currently in the last paragraph of the article it states "Bentley relocated Fresh Fire to Joyner's ministry in Fort Mill, South Carolina as part of a 'process of restoration'." Is this correct? From my understanding, Bentley is not currently imployed by Fresh Fire as he was, in their eyes, guilty of adultery. I know his marital status has changed, but since he is currently in a "process of restoration" its impossible for him to be a minister. When a fallen minister is being restored he usually isn't permitted to preach or manage a ministry. I'm not saying Fresh Fire hasn't relocated, but what I am saying is that I haven't read anywhere that "Bentley relocated Fresh Fire." The Religion News blog nothing about relocating Fresh Fire. Did someone place the wrong source? The source that mentions it, Rick Joyner's blog, only says that Fresh Fire has relocated and we should say what the source says. Ltwin (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Fresh Fire website is saying that they are changing their name so that Bentley can have it... I presume they want to distance themselves from him and continue a number of other projects, and that since it has become so associated with Bentley, its only useful to him. So currently, he is not employed by Fresh Fire, but it is likely Bentley will take the name. As I understand it. Hyper3 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Neutral

This article has been through many edits recently that have resulted in an overtly (and unacceptable) critical tone. Every paragraph seems to quote critics and highlights Christian community disapproval of subject. Even discussion of subject's appearance devolves into discussion of militant eschatology movement. If not brought into balance, I would recommend removal of article. (EBY) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.34.109 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples of how you think this is "overtly (and [unacceptably]) critical" might help. Ltwin (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The personal stuff - I think there are more lines devoted to the subject's marital status than there are about his theology. Look at the line "although the authenticity of this will be debated" about his restoration after divorce; even if that's a direct quote (not punctuated as one) - it's an extremely critical line which claims a blog as a cite. How about the strange connection of the tattoo in the subject's appearance to the Latter Rain movement? First of all, nowhere in the wiki-linked Wiki article on Latter Rain is "Joel's Army" mentioned. Secondly, there is NO reliable source that the subject's "Joel's Army" tattoo has ANY connection to the Latter Rain movement. It is one editor's original research. Likewise the connection to Paul Cain's appearance at the Lakeland revival as evidence of the Bentley's involvement - nowhere in that cite does the connection get made. In fact, it barely mentions Bentley at all. Put it together and there's undo weight on his personal life over his evangelism. Guilt by association, and conjectural interpretations of sources. Grapevine at the least, if not coatracking. 67.175.34.109 (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

EBY: I am happy to see that you want to be involved with the article. Perhaps those of us who edit this article are too close to it and consider some of the things you mention as astonishingly obvious and therefore do not make the links. Its one of those grey areas between opinion and obvious fact that is hard to deal with. For example, the connection between the Latter Rain Movement and the Joel's Army doctrine are well known. If we get a quote for this, it could be called synthesis, as it may not be from a source that is also commenting on Bentley. (I have made the necessary changes at Latter Rain Movement. thanks for pointing that out). Also, it is hard for those outside the community to understand the highly critical nature of being a "one woman man" for those in Christian leadership. Because of this, personal details come into the picture in a way that wouldn't normally be suitable in a biography. There are two things Bentley is notable for - leading the Lakeland Revival and divorcing his wife in the middle of it. These are the two issues that need covering, because the second affects his authenticity in the first. There is much out there that is reliable, and what you call a blog is on a Christian media website and is no different to a personal piece in that magazine's pages, and therefore needs to be written to the same standards; it is much better than a self-published blog. What may also be hard for you to understand, is that his marital status is his theology - they at least cannot be divorced. Or put another way, theory and praxis cannot be separated in the way that you seem to claim. When I started on this it was all criticism; I have tried to make it more balanced. But please help us deal with one issue at a time, there are a few of us willing to work on this together who believe in the wisdom of crowds and the wiki process.Hyper3 (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This begs two questions - 1) Why aren't the Joel's Army references & connections combined under a single heading that is well-cited, and connected to the subject's theology and 2) Why isn't the marital information presented also bundled in reflection against theology? If the two are entwined for the subject, there should be reliable cites that say so - otherwise isn't it original research? EBY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.34.109 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

By all means, do the research and make some constructive edits on the Joel's Army issue. The divorce comments are often tied into comments about fitness to be a Christian leader. Does it need to be made clearer? What would you suggest? Hyper3 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a cite that shows Bentley's association with Paul Cain, "an associate of Branham and himself a healing evangelist of the 50s, illustrates the connection to some extent" - the cite given doesn't do that at all. And for the divorce and remarriage, if it has had a major impact on his standing as an evangelist shouldn't that be the cited focus and not the details per se? EBY67.175.34.109 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(removed under WP:BLP by -- Joren (talk))173.16.190.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

I think the above should be removed under WP:BLP Hyper3 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is as good as it will be able to be for the subject. What happened with the Lakeland revivals, his divorce, and remarriage is very difficult to interpret in a positive light given his own purported theological beliefs. The article does a good job of stating the facts, not getting into Joel's Army and Latter Rain movement theology, but at the same time the article draws the obvious and proper link between his affair/innapropriate relationship and the end of the Lakeland revivals and his time in the ministry. This event was very traumatic in the evangelical community, and was very negative, there is no question about that. On the other hand calling him a religous fascists would be obviously non-neutral, but even then there is no reasonable way to interpret this man as a religous fascist. The "taking of ground for God" he was speaking of was not actual revolution, but a symbolic gesture. He never voiced any rhetoric regarding politics that would indicate a sense of fascism and did not try to force people to follow what he believed was truth. He certainly said that he had the only truth, but fascism is by definition forcing people to live by your moral code through coercion if necessary. He never advocated coercive action at all. I think the neutrality flag can be removed for the simple fact of the matter that the article points to facts, doesn't reach for its conclusions, and draws correct links between his personal failings and exit from his ministry which is the most notable event in the subject's life to date. Musing Sojourner (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(removed under WP:BLP by -- Joren (talk)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.194.26 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyper, I agree with you idea to remove the comment you cited, and I propose that the comment immediatley above also be removed underWP:BLP. To the writer, this is a biography of a living person. Any discussion regarding them should be conservative, calm, rational, and extremely well sourced. You have done none of those things. When your ready to cite relaible sources, and tone down the rhetoric, we'll be more than glad to hear everything you have to say regarding Todd Bentley. Musing Sojourner (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the whole encyclopaedia thing is hard to get used to, its just that we can't treat this page like a scandal-rag. There are rules about what we can and can't put in, and there is the issue of tone. If you want scandal, there are plenty of places on the internet to get that. This is for scholarly reflection... and reliable information. Hyper3 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the opening comment which refers to Todd as being increasingly considered a 'false prophet by Christian communities' needs further clarification, specifically which Christian communities this is referring to. As we can see from this talk page alone, there are Christians who still support Todd and it is unfair to generalise and claim that he is near-universally condemned as a false prophet. Furthermore, the phrase 'is increasing considered' implicitly implies that this process of being ostracised will continue to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.84.142 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to verify that comment with the source; verification failed (the source doesn't talk about how Christian communities perceive him at all - it is (only) an effort to distinguish between Todd Bentley and Orthodox Christianity, so attempting to survey Christian community reaction to him would be outside the scope of that paper. At best, it can be considered an argument for how it believes Christian community should perceive him, but it does not state that Christian communities are actually doing so. My guess is that the original editor was conducting WP:SYNTHESIS, that is, he or she was using the existence of a paper questioning his orthodoxy as evidence to support the hypothesis that more Christians were considering him a false prophet. However, Wikipedia needs to have a source which explicitly says this has happened; it is not enough for an editor to surmise that it has. If it can be supported, then let's figure out how to keep the claim, but right now it needs a source.

-- Joren (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source that I removed; in case it is useful elsewhere in the article: Is the Lakeland, Florida revival led by Todd Bentley of Fresh Fire Ministries a true biblical revival?

-- Joren (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to narrow its focus more

I think the Joyner qoute at the bottom of the article is too much. Also, the Strader qoute in the "Theology" section just does not belong there. Ltwin (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

no were in the bible did the lord heal with brute force kicking and punching todds miracles or so called miracles are from satan this man is sending people to the pit remember the speaking in tougues and laying on of hands were for a sign in the early church christ the lord said some shall come in my name false christs and witnesses preaching to those with itching ears do not beleive all u hear read the bible let the lord teach you and show u the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.193.117 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Joyner quote provides a current update to one of the more significant happenings in the subject's life. Perhaps the article should be better organized, but the situation makes doing that a bit complex. His personal life and ministry are strongly intertwined. His divorce directly relates to what happened to the revivals he lead and how things turned out for him, as the fact that he had a relationship with another woman is why he was asked to step down. The conclusion/current status of that story in his life is key to knowing what he is doing now.

As for comments saying this article is not neutral I think this is an impossible article to write in such a way where Mr. Bentley is not perceived negatively. The rigorous investigative reporting went against his claims of faith healing. He was forced to step down for what is clearly a violation of his own theological beliefs regarding marriage and adultery. Furthermore while the spirit of the revivals would not be considered entirely outside of Christian orthodoxy, many Christians would consider what happened there heretical. I think the article does as good a job as can be expected to present the facts. The grammar of the article is dry as it should be and simply points out the facts. Structurally I could see someone critiquing it as disorganized, but I am too new to really feel confident enough to reevaluate that. Musing Sojourner (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information in the Joyner quote being in the article, what I have a problem is that we should have the whole quote. You can summarize what's in the quote. Ltwin (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I edited that statement to summarize what was reported in the Charisma article about their interview with Rick Joyner. Look it over as it's one of my first edits to an actual article. Musing Sojourner (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

mental illness

(removed under WP:BLP by -- Joren (talk)) 60.230.35.119 (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia but I do think that claiming mental disorders is a bit much. I realize this IP was unsigned, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that many people read passages in the bible referring to these things and then report having said experiences. these people are mentally and emotionally stable people, who may be making it up, may not be, or may just have an overactive imagination. Accusing them of mental disorders without concrete sources is illegitimate. Musing Sojourner (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

External Link

I noticed that two of the three external links were orphaned, so I've taken the liberty to replace them with links that are hopefully, roughly equivalent. Unfortunately the lack of caffeine seems to have addled my editing skills, causing me to forget a few details whilst editing. Heliatrope Fish (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Feh - don't worry about "addled" editing. It happens to the best of WP editors! --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mental Illness I am curious to know what illness it is that people think Bentley has? I have often wondered if he is a bit deluded and being taken advantage of by others. However there does not appear to be any concrete evidence for this. His preaching, and actions are not consistent with most other Christian churches. Money making is no doubt the real reason behind his bizarre and abusive behaviour. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooldea65 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Mental Illness

It is true that there is no evidence as yet as to whether or not Bentley has a mental illness however this is still a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooldea65 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mental Illness. The reason that someone people speculated that Bentley could have a mental illness is because he openly told several people that he had been miraculously transported without getting on any modes of transport from North America to Australia and had a vision. Now I am not saying that this definitely proves that he has mental health problems however it is a fact that several people do in fact think this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.154.216 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

POV Tag Removal

I note that the POV tag has been in place for over a year now, during which time there have been many edits and hopefully a consensus has been achieved. I think perhaps the questions of bias have now been sufficiently resolved to warrant its removal. There haven't been any discussions on this subject for over 6 months. Unless anyone objects, I'll remove the tag in a few days. Sidefall (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time and I impression is a lot of his followers contributed to it. I like how the media is portrayed in the article - "mainstream media" LOL! This article sucks and much of it could have been written by Todd himself. I'd keep the POV tag, some of it is clearly written to downplay this mans mental illness and make the press or others seem to be the ones on the outside of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bar from the United Kingdom

Todd has as of 20th August 2012 been barred from access to the United Kingdom by Visa with an "exclusion zone" - this is going to be hotly contested by his ministry and followers (which coincidentally i am one of) but i feel that this should be recorded with some neutrality in the Wikipedia entry, as the intention of wikipedia is to report the facts.

Could this be safely included in the article without being controversial? it has (at the moment) 1 reliable source being the guardian, but i'm sure that as of tomorrow's newspapers there will be multiple reports of this.

i'm not sure how to remain impartial as i believe that the home office is wrong in their decision to bar todd, so could someone add the information to the article without being biased either for or against todd?

Christophermiller1981 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

UK reports indicate Todd assaults people as part of his "healing". If this is true then the UK Government is correct in banning him, as he is likely to commit crimes in their jurisdiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.248.41.90 (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Official ban reason

What was the official reason for barring Mr. Bentley? A UK government's home office statement on why the country doesn't apologise is quoted, but it doesn't substantiate how the ban was officially motivated. Apdency (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sexual assault

Hyper3 can you please explain what BLP concerns you have with identifying the age of the victim? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My concerns are found here: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP..." WP:BLP It is the last sentence that is primary - we must respect the privacy of those mentioned, even tangentially, in an article. The fact that this material is in the public domain is not relevant. I think we should not mention the age and sex of the victim; it is surprisingly easy to identify someone using a small number of facts. Hyper3 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As a technology professional in the medical industry, I'm an expert on HIPAA laws which define how to de-identify data to ensure patients can not be identified when data is exposed or shared by medical parties. Gender and age alone can never be used to identify a victim. HYper3's argument is incorrect and invalid. There is no substantive reason given for his continued removal of my adding those facts to this article. Since neither of us can act apart from 'concensus', can others chime in here so we can gain concensus. Just as 'arrest; alone is not as informative as 'arrest for assault' and that not as informative as clarifying it as 'sexual assault', adding that his victim was a 7 year old boy has important context; particularly for parents who have a right to know and need to exercise wisdom in not leaving the man alone with their children - I believe in repentance and redemption, but also to not put someone in the path of temptation any more than inviting a former alcoholic to a bar for drinks. These facts really do need to remain in the article; it's irresponsible not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.203.140 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you for (finally!) discussing the matter on this talk page. Actually, what you say sounds fair enough - it's clearly in the source. StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We must remember that this information is in the public domain contrary to Canadian law - where it is held that such information does breach the privacy of Bentley. So it is not a completely foolish thing to be saying, as at least one domain of legal thought holds it be so. If it breaches the privacy of Bentley, how much more does it breach the privacy of the victim? Secondly, we are not talking about the sex and age of the victim as the only public information: we can guess where the victim lived, who else knew the victim from Bentley's school friends of that age; and anyone who wants to can probably go and find out their identity. We should do all we can to avoid the continued victimisation of this man who has suffered enough. In any case - what any of us thinks on the subject of outing Bentley as a pedophile is irrelevant - we must stick to WP:BLP which I think covers this case admirably. Wikipedia is not the place to out pedophiles. There are other places for that. If the anonymous editor wishes to see minors protected from Bentley (and who can fault him) then he can rest assured that the rest of the Internet achieves that. His personal research is considered WP:OR on wikipedia; the need for consensus is not the only element: we must agree about how the guidelines apply. Re-read my first post above - surely it applies squarely here. Hyper3 (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So if it violates Canadian law, and that is the basis for your objection, why are you not removing all reference to the assault and the article exposing it to the public? That would at least be consistent with your argument. I continue to strongly disagree with your assertion that the gender and age of his victim makes it possible for him to be identified. That is unsubstantiated; it is simply your opinion and I know it to be completely baseless. Proof in point is the evening news . . . news stories are allowed to specify the gender and age of victims in such reporting because it does not lead to the victim's identification. The date of birth is another matter, but age is acceptable. This is universally understood. And since age and gender cannot lead to identification, it does not violate BLP. If this were not accurate and were just rumor, then I would agree that it does not belong here. But since it is fact, it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.84.227.12 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We must apply the guidelines. Lets not victimise the boy further by giving unnecessary details about his trauma just to make a point about Bentley. That is unkind. I'm sure there is a way of delivering the information without specifying the victim. There is plenty of evidence on the web of the boy's family finding Bentley's ministry painful - so again, it is not foolish to suggest that keeping details about the boy to a minimum is irrelevant to the way WP:BLP should apply. Hyper3 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, again, gender and age 'specifies" no one. That said, if you will kindly provide a citation regarding the victim's family and the pain they are suffering from Bentley's ministry, I will reconsider my position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.84.227.12 (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Following up on my own, I located a rather extensive article on the subject at the following link, http://www.charismamag.com/spirit/devotionals/daily-breakthroughs?view=article&id=814:healing-evangelist-todd-bentley-reveals-facts-about-past-assault-&catid=154, which states "But The Report story backfired when the mother of the victim of the assault read the article and informed the magazine that Bentley's assault had been sexual and that he had molested her son, also a minor, at the time.... The family of the assault victim had moved to Kewlona, and when they saw the posters with Bentley's name, they contacted local media. Bentley decided to address the local outcry by going on the 6 p.m. local TV-news broadcast. He admitted the crime on-air, asked for forgiveness, told viewers how ashamed he was, and how he was transformed five years after the incident by the gospel's power."

Considering that the victim's family contacted the local media to notify them of Bentley's assault and the fact that he publicly confessed to it, I see no reason not to add it to this article. If the family wanted to keep it a secret and have the world not know what Bentley did, then they would not have contacted the local media. And with Bentley announcing it from the stage, again, serves to show that by adding this to the article here on wikipedia, it is not dishing out rumors or violating anyone's privacy. 161.84.227.12 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender and age, together with other available information would give anyone who wanted to discover the victim's identity a good start. You are ignoring the fact that I am not contending that gender and age alone is the problem. I do understand that saying "boy aged 7" does not identify anyone. But together with other information, I believe it does. I also understand that anyone can find this on the Internet. The issue I am arguing about is whether the Wikipedia guidelines allow us to use the details of a crime (to protect others) and have no regard for the victim. I feel you are willfully ignoring this and not therefore really giving attention to the issue.

The article you refer to is the article that demonstrates the family's pain. I am aware that Bentley has been public about the story in a number of ways. I am not here arguing that Bentley should be protected from information that he himself has acknowledged. I am contending that Wikipedia is not the place to copy every detail of Bentley's life and crimes without regard for the effect on the victim. This is a simple argument.

Sometimes Wikipedia editors struggle to understand that Wikipedia is not a place to do investigative journalism nor is "truth" or "justice" the standard by which things enter the encyclopedia. It must be reliably sourced and conform to the guidelines. The material you want to include is reliably sourced. The question is, does it belong in an encyclopedia in the manner in which you propose? I say no, and I refer to the guidelines to back me up. You must address the issue of the guidelines set out in WP:BLP that I have pointed out, making sure you understand them before our conversation here even begins to be an argument. We are speaking past each other currently.

Hyper3 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You still have not provided any evidence or substantive rationale for excluding the victim's age and gender. No, we're not talking "past" one another, we're in complete disagreement. You're acting like the sole traffic cop for this article. We've only had one other voice in the mix, and that voice supported my position. In terms of a consensus, that 2 against 1. I am adding the facts back into the article and will report your behavior if you delete it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.84.227.12 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is my rationale: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP..." I believe that this applies here, and that details about the victim should not be included. Please tell me why I am wrong to apply this guideline in this way. Hyper3 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep shifting your rationale from protecting the victim's privacy, which is a non-issue, to protecting Bentley's privacy. As stated before, if both the victim's family and Bentley himself went on public television to discuss the specifics of that crime and the age/gender of the victim being discussed openly on the airwaves, then both the victim and Bentley have already chosen not to keep it private. If they don't want it private, then why would you? And if protecting Bentley's privacy is your rationale, then why have you chosen to allow 'sexual' assault? Or leave in the entire discussion of the Reporter station the crimes were 'heinous'? Why not just state that he served time in jail? Or why even say that much? Just where do you draw the line? You're not being consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.84.227.12 (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not shifting anything. I just repeated my original contention. I've never mentioned Bentley's privacy. Its always been a question of whether the guidelines encourage us to leave out specific details for the sake of the victim. I believe they do. Tell me why (with reference to the guidelines) I am wrong.

I don’t think that including the material you advocate conforms with the guidelines' injunction to write "conservatively with regard to the subject's privacy" remembering the subject here is the victim.

Hyper3 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Any enthusiasm for compromising on "convicted of a sexual assault of a young boy" or "convicted of a sexual assault of a younger boy"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea on the compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.203.140 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

i read thru the discussion here. i disagree with the compromise because it minimizes what happened. granted, "young boy" is better than "younger boy." but there was a 6 YEAR DIFFERENCE in the ages (bentley was 13 when he sexually assaulted a 7-year-old boy). that's a lot, and it's important. and i honestly don't see how someone is going to figure out the identity of the victim because WP puts both the age and the sex of the victim on a page. as noted by more than one other person, the info is already in the cited source (the one that is still active). and that source is Canadian (AND includes a location). so, like others, i find Hyper3's "concern" about this to be suspect.Colbey84 (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that at the time of the publication of the Charisma magazine article (2002) that the Young Offenders Act was the law in Canada. That was later replaced in 2003 with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which was then modified in 2012 the law was changed in 2012: "The YCJA now gives judges discretion to lift a publication ban whenever a youth is given a youth sentence for a violent offence." I point this out to point out that these changes have nothing to do with what is written in this section. The original newspaper report came about when the reporter talked to the mother of Bentley's (who was then 13) victim who claimed that it was a sexual assault. Bentley publicly addressed this in the Charisma magazine article and publicly admitted it was a sexual assault. Therefore the reality of this fact is in the public realm acknowledged by Bentley himself. It is likely that the original court records are still sealed and will remain that way even under current Canadian law. A judge would have to be convinced that Bentley was a violent current threat and that the original crime fell under the definitions set up in the 2012 revisions of the applicable laws. Mr Jesperson (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)(talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Todd Bentley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923235247/http://othellooutlook.com:80/cgi-bin/outlook/get_story.cgi?story=Story_5 to http://othellooutlook.com/cgi-bin/outlook/get_story.cgi?story=Story_5&dir=05222008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060830221123/http://www.frontlineconference.com:80/Rivers06/84B8A20D-CF6E-11DA-B4AC-000A95E2A654.html to http://www.frontlineconference.com/Rivers06/84B8A20D-CF6E-11DA-B4AC-000A95E2A654.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705114329/http://www.goodnewsfl.org:80/local.asp?page=bc/0608/front/todd.asp to http://www.goodnewsfl.org/local.asp?page=bc/0608/front/todd.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080320034546/http://www.freshfire.ca:80/? to http://www.freshfire.ca/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090917115644/http://www.onenewsnow.com:80/Church/Default.aspx?id=219700 to http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=219700
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015081624/http://www.oaktree.org.uk:80/update_on_todd_bentley_from_fresh_fire_ministries to http://www.oaktree.org.uk/update_on_todd_bentley_from_fresh_fire_ministries
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091215122429/http://www.freshfire.ca:80/printpage_content.php?id=1065 to http://www.freshfire.ca/printpage_content.php?id=1065
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716152341/http://strangreport.com/index.php/2008/08/its-time-for-spiritual-fathers.html to http://strangreport.com/index.php/2008/08/its-time-for-spiritual-fathers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121223353/http://www.bjm.org/regarding-todd-bentley.html to http://www.bjm.org/regarding-todd-bentley.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090314061716/http://charismamag.com:80/index.php/news/20004-todd-bentley-remarries-begins-restoration-process to http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/20004-todd-bentley-remarries-begins-restoration-process
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100102193600/http://charismamag.com/index.php/fire-in-my-bones/20005-the-tragic-scandal-of-greasy-grace to http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/fire-in-my-bones/20005-the-tragic-scandal-of-greasy-grace
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080601001145/http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2008/05/29/1075189.aspx? to http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/29/1075189.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080622235120/http://www.charlotte.com:80/345/story/676593.html to http://www.charlotte.com/345/story/676593.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080503034511/http://www.freshfire.ca:80/index.php?Id=943 to http://www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Id=943
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917180845/http://www.charismamag.com:80/news/archives/051308.html to http://www.charismamag.com/news/archives/051308.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Todd Bentley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522124900/http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/APA/807100752&template=apart to http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/APA/807100752&template=apart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Self-published sentence and source moved from lede to Talk

The following sentence, in substantial part dealing with personal and potentially sensitive issues, appeared as the second sentence of the lede until today's edit:

• "After a brief period of retirement connected with the breakdown of his marriage and subsequent remarriage, he has returned to ministry."

The source given for the sentence is the following:

• Todd Bentley (2016-12-23). "Fresh Fire". Retrieved 2016-12-23.</ref>

This source is the home page of the title subject's ministry. It and the sentence are moved here because:

1. there is no support, correspondence, or other substantiation of the text content appearing on that page—the page presents an array of graphical imagery and links to videos, as well as a schedule, and there is no biographical text material at this webpage that can be construed as giving rise to the text sentence above, that was removed
2. the webpage is in fact, as the source itself presents, the web page of the title subject's ministry—that is, it is a self-published source of content, and so fails expectations of independent, third-party sourcing to create encyclopedic content.

Since this moved sentence is both personal and potentially sensitive, and per nos. 1 and 2, it is unsourced BLP material, it is moved here until an independent source that actually contains the content that the sentence summarises is found. Please, on finding such a source, check and edit the sentence to conform to the source.

A second issue of the article is that, with or without the sentence, the lede that appears does not summarise the article. Hence, when the corrected, sourced sentence is returned, please return it first to the article main body, and then, if it is an important summary sentence, to the lede as well. That is, please also contribute, in your editing, to solve the current problems with the lede.

Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Todd Bentley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://othellooutlook.com/cgi-bin/outlook/get_story.cgi?story=Story_5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222171712/https://slaughteringthesheep.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/did-todd-bentley-really-raise-the-dead/ to https://slaughteringthesheep.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/did-todd-bentley-really-raise-the-dead/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527141622/http://www.thouartthechrist.info:80/lakeland/ to http://www.thouartthechrist.info/lakeland/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)