Template:SG

Christianity: Charismatic Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Hi,i'm related to the annonymous person who post the most recent article under criticism.But,it's removed.If you read it carefully,those are not allegations or accusations.They are controversial issues with a lot of questions.

As long as i provide sources,those will definitely be posted?Because i'm worried even if i supply sources,supporters of that church will remove.Collecting sources is very difficult inside there. They don't give sermon notes,even if they give,people must still write down notes themselves.Furthermore,the notes are not online-based.Most of the time,they won't give. Horn 12:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.

___________

Hi. Anon user's posting is bias/personal opinion. Any postings should help to improve the content and context of an article ie. facts, grammer, sentence structure. Without supported source will compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Or otherwise, it will reach NPOV dispute or edit war. Some guidelines below:

Personal attacks: Once you've made a personal attack, the target will probably assume bad faith. The edit war will get even uglier.

Losing sight of the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy. The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone. Every revert (rather than change) of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat, no matter how outrageous the edit was. Consider figuring out why the other person felt the article was biased. Then, if possible, try to integrate their point, but in terms you consider neutral. If each side practices this they will eventually meet at NPOV — or a rough semblance of it.

--Tripartite 05:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfering two sentences on criticism from the article, one is a response to the above criticism regarding sermon notes:

An accusation has also been made in the talk page that the church does not gives sermon notes. It is only true that it seldom gives sermon notes.

People have also claimed that members speaks false tongues during services, this claim is dismissed as most the critics have not even attend any of the services. Some went even as far to say that the Curch steals money from its members' bank accounts!

--Vsion (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to original. An anon user is getting personal in his postings. Lots of allegations with no source.

Akajune, don't denote "Minor edit" when it's supposed to be a significant major edit. Some members have expressed this church's trachings, as unique, both Charismatic and Pentecostal. I agreed Charismatic Movement is confusing such as the Charismatic Catholic Movement and etc. But given this church's uniqueness, your "correction" as Pentecostal only is more misleading. Cat12zu 18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. A whole section just for me. Anyhoodle, i fail to see how the church's teachings resemble both. They are pretty distinct and separate in my POV, but since some members feel as such, i'll graciously bow out. I still feel it's rather minor. Meh. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Akajune 14:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits refer only to formatting changes, grammar corrections, removing obvious vandalism etc. Not for adding/amending/deleting content (no matter considered how "minor" to individual editors). Hope this helps...--Huaiwei 15:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not plagiarize other works. Much of the anon user on those CHC-related articles such as CHCSA, Ho Yeow Sun, etc.. seemed to be from websites. --Cat12zu 03:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pls put all CHCSA detail on CHCSA page, not here. Thanks. --Cat12zu 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note someone has pasted in the contents of http://www.chcsa.org.sg/tsunami_report.htm to this article. In accordance with above I'm removing it from this page and adding a link to City Harvest Community Services Association. --Air 15:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. --Cat12zu 23:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. Anon user 203.125.80.158 immediately pasted the web page in verbatim as before, without further comment. This user is evidently a member of said church, as the same IP has added a lot of POV stuff to the CHCSA page using the phrase "We". Will try and clean up both pages to a decent standard. --Air 12:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, really alot of POV. I added an HTML comment in case anon user had not visit the talk page. Sorry but as I had little free time, and most of my free time I took to edit wikipedia as a pastime. I try as possible as I can to contribute. Thank you very much A1r for good work...--Cat12zu 02:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, a pastime here too : ) Funny that I have no real interest in the content of these articles, just pursuing NPOV obsessively. Nice formatting of references btw. --Air 23:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide source for this paragraph, so that people can merge it?

In the late 90's before 2001, some of the church members evangelise through approaching people, especially young people, in public places such as bus interchages. They evangelise by showing their tracts and chatting with them.

Also source/evidence this paragraph

A person, being buddhist, was offended by some church members who ask him if it would be better to be in eternity heaven or reincarnated to a cockroach.

• My friend had personally encountered it. I'm sure many are offended as the church members are approaching them too in public places such as bus interchange, MRT (Metro) stations, etc.

Thanks. --Cat12zu 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sorry but this was, really, not substantial source. At this moment, I merge these as a claim.

--Cat12zu 23:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can some senior wikipedians review that phrase: The phrase "its doctrines show uncanny resembalance to that of the Charismatic movement." is written by a respected wikipedian, possibily one of wiki admin (i'm too lazy to search the whole history record, but for sure that is what i saw, written by somebody, and having vetted & trimmed by other wikipedians, before i add new informations)

That previous editor edit more poorly than mine (I'm beginner like him/her too): that truncated sentence (after deleting the aforementioned phrase) "Although City Harvest claims to be a Christian denomination of its own." is meaningless.

Lastly, if good points is also mentioned, why delete negative points about CHC? It's CHC is indeed one of the three megachurches in Singapore, as reported by self-censored local media (The Strait Times) There's no question about that vaildity. Both side of views must be represented, but it's seemed bias towards one side & hence POV.

Is it appropriate that the article use the word "saved" to describe new Church members? Should it not used "joined", a secular term?

Wikipedia has provided definition of the word "Save". Thus I feel that it's appropriate to place it there. dont you think so now?

Anon user 203.125.80.158 removed the only reference to Rev. Kong Hee in the context of founding the CHCSA. According to his article he founded the church itself, so I'll add him back in that context, as to miss him out completely seems a bit odd. --Air 12:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This fact is still verifiable. If I could get other claimed original co-founders but they had not written a report or have a website on it, the references could be an issue.

It's was known that Rev. Kong Hee with Ho Yeow Sun founded the CHCSA community organization. It's only that, currently, Ho Yeow Sun chaired that organization. I had added a web reference regarding this issue. --Cat12zu 03:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)-->

I am curious, but no offense, the method used by this church; my family are devoted members of a Protestant church, yet members of this church persist to contact my sister, and even attempting to bring her into the church.

Just to bring this to light. Slivester 23:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though I wish to be a member of the church, and went for their service twice. And actually I'm not allowed to go to this church. My friends will SMS or ask me do you want to come to church this week, and try to persuade you. Pastor Kong is a good pastor btw. No offence members of City Harvest. And I don't think that is a very big problem. Oh, thier goal is to get 20 000 members by end of this year. So I think they are asked to bring in more members. Terenceong1992 08:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case, lets not let too much personal grievances get into this. I do hold certain viewpoints about this church, but its not going to cause me to start expressing them as universal fact! :D--Huaiwei 15:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are controversies on churches (in the article) such as Hillsong Church in Sydney. It is a Megachurch too and it is City Harvest's partner church. Terenceong1992 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add on, I watch their services live every week on the internet, you can watch this videos at their website, about the preaching and praise and worship. Not only you have negative views over the church, a lot of people have actually, just this same thing and many more. Terenceong1992 17:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't mention my denomination (you can check it yourself), but I can say that I personally disagree with some of the church's practices. that aside, we need to keep this article wholly objective, and if we are to introduce opinionated content, it must be kept at a high quality and has to be popular (a lot of people have the same opinion) and/or significant (a prominent person had that opinion). if you want to debate on a personal and complete level about the church, we'll take it to another talk page of a non-existant article.--Ariedartin 08:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an account of a visit to the City Harvest Church on this blog[1]. Are the claims made by the author verifiable or true, esp. the following paragraphs:

Sayeth the Rev. Kong Hee, 'Jesus wore the modern-day equivalent of a business suit. That is why I'm dressed like this. I want to be like Jesus! Hallejulah!'

The pastor proceeded to give many examples from the Bible of people Jesus met and formed Marketplace business contacts with, including tax collectors... Rev. Kong Hee also says Jesus attended high-class functions and banquets to further his Marketplace influence.

Apparently, according to Rev. Kong Hee, God thinks the whole Marketplace idea is great so God knows alot of multi-millionaries that have their own helicopters and 5-star hotels. And God likes his multi-storey multi-complex stadiums (churches too small and so yesterday alreade) so much that he bestows great wealth of those who want to build some for him.

If verifiable and true, might tie this into prosperity teaching, but I'd rather not add this section and incident without an explanation and verification by a City Harvest member.Akikonomu 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the last paragraph in the quotation. No idea how to cite references to that though. Cheers! p 0 r + z 12:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to rename to "City Harvest Church", the complete name of the entity. Comments please. --Vsion 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vsion, the website puts its name as City Harvest. But for albums and services it is City Harvest Church. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, there are two things, City Harvest (the non-profit organization) and City Harvest Church (the church http://www.chc.org.sg/english/main.htm) --Vsion 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the official name is "City Harvest Church" (I know the website logo displayed "City Harvest", but I think it is more of a logo design concern). In fact, the church frequently refers to itself as CHC, abbreviation for City Harvest Church.Atticuslai 09:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support it being renamed. the New York organisation needs a space for its own article too, especially when City Harvest Church is not equivalent to City Harvest.--202.156.6.54 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the general consensus is that the article shall be renamed. Let it be done. Ariedartin JECJY 16:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that will do. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference about the public apology made by a businessman to City Harvest, [2]. Apparently, this news article is from the Straits Times, but the posting is in www.religionnewsblog.com. It there any reason to doubt that the apology did took place? --Vsion 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would explain my most recent edits in the article: 1) City Harvest IS a non-deniminational church. From my understanding, a denomination is an established or recognized organization, such as Methodist, Baptist, Catholics, etc. "Charismatic" and "Pentecostal" are not "denomination" per se - they are description of the beliefs. For example, "Assemblies of God" is a denomination by itself, and subscribed to the Charismatic or Pentecostal beliefs. City Harvest at the moment is an independant chuch.

2) City Harvest Bible Training Center is spelt with the American "Center" rather than "Centre". That is what is displayed in the church website.

3) "uses contemporary way of praise and worship" -versus- "uses contemporary music and setting for praise and worship". I think the latter is more accurate as there is not "new" way of praise and worship (it is still dancing, lifting up hands, loud music, etc.), but old way "updated" with contemporary music style and setting (rock concert like).

Atticuslai 10:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we all know that Pentacostals are themselves a denomination, but as Pentacostal belief refers to a philosophy like those of the Pentacostals, wouldn't that logically make them Pentacostals in nature? Let us liken this to a green apple declaring it is of any colour, but in truth, we can see that the apple is indeed green. However, we can say that "Although City Harvest declares itself to be non-denominational, its beliefs are Pentacostal in nature". --Ariedartin 08:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article has been overly fragmented into too many sections each with too little content. I'll be reformatting some of it, but I'll try not to delete anything.--Ariedartin 08:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done. I hope it hasn't been too much of a hassle. some subjective parts were also removed.--Ariedartin 09:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are too many of such tags, asking for "facts" to be verified. But are they really necessary? Take the section on Partnership:

The church has hosted some established evangelists such as Ulf Ekman, John Avanzini, Benny Hinn, Richard Roberts etc. Since 2004, they also participated in Ulf Ekman's Israel Study Trip, which includes Christian holy sites and towns, except West Bank. [citation needed]

It also hosts an annual youth event, Emerge Conference, usually held in June which attracts several youth churches in Asia. City Harvest has also embarked on Emerge KL and Emerge Taiwan. This year, it has a new addition, Spelling Bee, with the reasoning that a strong foundation in the command of language would pave the way for future success.It also had a make-up competition to pave a way into the Arts Scene in Singapore. [citation needed] Kong Hee is also the chairman of the Festival of Praise, a nationwide multi-denominational event held in August annually, usually during the National Day period. [citation needed]

Why do we need those tags in those short paragraphs? They are neither statsitics or figures that needed verifications. If we tag stuff like these, then shouldn't we also tag "citation needed" for say, "Singapore 2006 was held in Suntec City"?

I believe inclusion of whatever text in an article should first be verifiable, the source be notable, and whether the text are relevant to the subject matter. Let's disucss the merit of putting the criticsm text into the article.

Critics allege that the church spends extravagantly in various ways, such as the titanium cladding around the building, which costs approximately 2% of the building cost

Who are the critics? There was no reference.

Criticism of the church’s method and insensitivity of converting people has also been made. Kong Hee has stated that the "message is sacred, but the method can be different

Where did the criticism come from? There was no reference.

The church has been criticised by Way Of Life Literature, a fundamental Baptist organisation, for its support of Kong Hee's wife, Sun Ho, in her previous dual role as both a Christian pastor and a pop singer.^[1] However, she is currently no longer a pastor of the church.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry has some opinion (and criticsm) about anything that can be found in Wiki, but we don't list them all out simply because many of them are just that: Tom, Dick and Harry. Is Way of Life Literature a notable or influential group? If we want to include an opinion from Way of Life group, then the criticism section must be thousand lines long because we should include criticim of the church (or many other churches, or many other subjects) from lots of places.

While Sun Ho was pursuing her career as a singer, she was heavily criticized for wearing a flaming red Giorgio Armani gown that "showed too much flesh — and in all the wrong places". However, while the media had previously portrayed her as a "singing pastor" without objection, she had not denied it until the incident. It was reported that she told The New Paper: “I'm just the music director of my church, and I'm also a counsellor. I'm not a pastor. I don't preach.”^[2]

The article is about City Harvest Church. There is a wiki page on Sun Ho, and I believe this portion of the text should go there instead.
Atticuslai 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be out of context as there are many prominent members in City Harvest Church besides Sun Ho.

What is the purpose of including this?

Jing13 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the figures and facts under City Harvest Church has the sources cited. Are there any statments in the article that are disputed?

As quoted above under Too many "Citation Needed" tags?, < Why do we need those tags in those short paragraphs? They are neither statsitics or figures that needed verifications. If we tag stuff like these, then shouldn't we also tag "citation needed" for say, "Singapore 2006 was held in Suntec City"? >

I agree with the above post and I do not think that everything on the articles needs to be cited. For example,

they also participated in Ulf Ekman's Israel Study Trip, which includes Christian holy sites and towns, except West Bank.[citation needed]

Jing13 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this tag as the article has quoted references to various sources.

Jing13 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more third party sources. - 222.164.82.241 09:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to have information from reliable sources confirming that it is notable outside of its immediate community. - 222.164.80.23 05:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the 'An editor has expressed a concern that the tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia.' from the City Harvest Church article.

The tone of the article does not seems offensive or inappropriate and is formal. I have also checked the talk page and there does not seem to have any outstanding concerns or 'debates'

Jing13 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the article: "Today, CHC is sending out teams to various parts of Asia to minister the Word of God to people everywhere with healing, signs and wonders following". Stuff like this is entirely inappropriate in tone for an encyclopedia -- and it's plagiarized from [3] to boot. I've stripped out the fluff. Jpatokal 10:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jpatokal,

You have removed my contribution about the service timings of City Harvest Church, citing that they are not of "encyclopedia" content.

I have added them back as they are facts and serve as information of City Harvest Church's different services and timing.

Further more, many other Churches in Singapore have their own service timing included in their Wikipedia pages. To name a few :

• Church of the Holy Family Singapore
• Faith Community Baptist Church
• Church of the Sacred Heart-Singapore

With regards to the inappropriate tone, since the part about “healing and wonders” has been removed, the tag of 'An editor has expressed a concern that the tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia’ can be removed.

Jing13 10:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Scheduled church services. As for inappropriate tone, I've tagged one particularly egregious paragraph, but eg. the mission statement is still blatant fanboyism. Jpatokal 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jpatokal,

Every Church would have its own Misson Statement, much like a school's motto. The Misson Statement of a Church reflects upon the Church. Every Church has their own area of focus, or an area where they are particularly strong in. Having the Misson Statement and the services that a Church has will only let others know more about the Church.

I think that it's only right to include both the Mission Statement and information about the Church's services.

And may you explain why you have tagged the particularly egregious paragraph? What is your concern?

Jing13 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there we have it: your goal is to "let other know more about the Church". Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia's goal is to write an encyclopedia.

The paragraph is tagged because it's terrible English, adds little if any value, is POV ("our") and is unsourced. As for church services being relevant or not, so far the consensus is not going your way, but please contribute on the Talk page for WP:NOT. Jpatokal 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-did the section. I think it will be better this way. I think we all have the interest at heart to make an article better. Just that we need to put it down properly. :) Tripartite007 01:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

　Thank you, the article is better now, although still one-sided. Jpatokal 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who edit in reference of other mega churches, and said it is to "give credit to other mega churches": what is the rational? Why do you need (and what do you mean) to "give credit to other mega churches" in an article about one church? Give "credit" for what? This is totally irrelevant to the article. It would help if you elaborate on that. For now, I am removing the irrelevant content. Also, the next sentence suggest that City Harvest Church has many cooperative relationship with many of these "mega churches". The truth is, CHC cooperates with many other churches, not just mega churches. Atticuslai 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous edits, mega churches are already mentioned.

"The other mega churches in Singapore, namely New Creation Church and Faith Community Baptist Church, have different areas of focus."

Is there a reason for you to remove it now?

In the context of mega churches, there are many other churches in Singapore besides New Creation Church and Faith Community Baptist Church.

Its true that CHC has working relationships with other churches, but right now the paragraph is talking about mega churches.

203.127.74.49 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is an example of undue emphasis. We already mentioned that CHC networks with other churches in the preceding paragraph, but to repeat that point with a paragraph that stresses only certain named mega-churches is to unduly emphasise the relation between CHC and these specific churches. Unless CHC specifically mentions that they seek out churches to network with based on their size (and no, your suspicions/guesses/hunches don't count), then we should not specifically mention mega-churches as examples. Resurgent insurgent 11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that if churches which network with CHC are to be named at all, then name them all instead of emphasising the mega-churches. Note that if you name them you must provide an official source. If even CHC's website doesn't mention all of them, don't add any names to the article. I am still opposed to naming any of them because it is normal for churches to network, either formally or informally; it is not something exclusive to CHC. I also reconsidered the protection of the article because I have inadvertently become involved in this little dispute and it is unfair for someone involved to protect the article. Resurgent insurgent 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Polarizer,

You tagged the article "This article or section is written like an advertisement."

May you cite examples in the article where this seems to be true?

The information in the article are factual and does not seem to be selling any "business" or "programs".

219.74.94.47 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think he might be referring to the positive POV most of the article seems to be written in, true or not. The facts may be true, but he may be concerned about the tone in which it was written. After all, an advertisement does not have to be false to be an advertisement. However, to stop short of becoming a shot-up messenger, I will give no personal stand on the issue at the moment (it's a bad time of the day for thinking). Nevertheless, I would like to encourage you to only remove the tag when the other party has not given an answer or when the debate is settled. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is different from a church's "Mission Statement". Mission statement states what the church wants to achieve, "Statement of Faith" states what the church believes. They are facts regarding the church, and they describe what kind of church it is. So I believe it is entirely appropriate for the sentences to be here in the article. Atticuslai 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to summarize the statement in the article (although I think it's too long for that), or you can move the extlink to the end. However, the sentence is meaningless without clicking on the link, so it's not appropriate for the body of the article. Jpatokal 11:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with Jpatokal what it's a bit long to be "summarized" and to be included in the article, I do not think the sentence should be remmoved from the paragraph. My views are somewhat similar to Atticuslai. A Church's belief, Mission Statement and their Statement of Faith is very important to a Church. Why do you think its not appropriate to be there? The link should be included right there in the paragrah as it acts as a valuable source of information for the readers. Should you bring it down to the extlink at the end, readers might not notice it. Besides, it's not an external link, but a necessary link of information. Habbo sg 06:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An external link is anything that points outside Wikipedia, so yes, it is an external link. Both WP:EL and the Manual of Style mandates that extlinks in article content should be used only as references.

The simplest way I can put this: print out the article and read that sentence on paper. Does the sentence "The fundamental teachings and core beliefs of the Church are reflected in their Statements of Faith" have any meaning when you can't click on the link? Why, no, it doesn't. Jpatokal 12:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why must the sentence be of any meaning if you dont click on the link? Cant it be there to inform the people?

It's not "informing" anybody because, as you admit, the statement has no meaning without the link. Jpatokal 12:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous reversions make baby Jesus cry. Please obey authority like a good Christian should. Jpatokal 04:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your reasoning on the recent edits, and equally frown on anonymous reversions that does nothing to improve the article, I feel the condescending statement above is totally uncalled for. I seriously doubt the neutrality of your future edits in this article due to such statement. Atticuslai 05:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to do so; I've doubted the future, present and past neutrality of every church member editing this article. Jpatokal 07:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there will be disagreements when it comes to an article, and I have always welcomed different edits and opinions, irrespective of whether the person is a member of the church, from another church, or a non-Christian. But I don't think anyone has given you any condescending remarks about you or your beliefs. That's the difference. Atticuslai 09:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short of jumping into the fray, let me lay down some opinions. Personally speaking, the statement is politically ambiguous and an accusation of being condescending is somewhat far-fetched to me. However, let's disregard that personal viewpoint, taking into account and respecting your different religious perspectives. Nonetheless, there is still no basis for turning its condescension (even true) into a reason to doubt another's logic and, let's face it, it amounts to poisoning the well - and not for solid reasons, either. However, let's all be respectful in our discussion of the issue at hand, and not resort to any potentially hurtful remarks. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One link to the website of the church is enough. - 222.164.82.241 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elonka,

You tagged the article "This article may require cleanup." May you cite areas in the article which warranes this? Will you be able to give a more a more specific message?

Thanks, 219.74.91.51 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.  :)

• The section headers need to be lower-cased, per WP:MOS
• It's written too much in a directory style, and not like an encyclopedia article. The lists of affiliated organizations and their related mission statements should probably be deleted.
• There are far too many primary sources, meaning to the Church's own website. See WP:NOR
• There's just plain too much advertising wording. "There are two make-up rooms behind the stage." "CHC began renting Hall 8". That kind of trivia is not needed.
• There is an "Awards" section, but none of them seem to be notable awards, and the only reference is to the Church's website. This is not acceptable. To prove an award's notability, it has to be referenced to a third-party source. If no third-party source can be provided, the award should not be included.

In short, I'd recommend deleting most of the information in this article, and then only including information about the Church that has been written about in third-party sources such as the Sunday Times (Singapore) and Straits Times. If information isn't notable enough to be in those papers, it's probably not notable enough to be in this Wikipedia article. --Elonka 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elonka,

• The Church’s Mission Statement and related information are very much like an organisation’s motto, and indcates the direction of the Church.

• The mission statements for “International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Google, Apple Inc, Campus Outreach, Salvation Army” are all included on Wikipedia articles. Articles on “TAG Heuer, Sun Microsystems, Boys' Brigade, IKEA, Harvard University, Riley (motorcar)” have all include the respective organisation’s motto too.

• The article does quote from a number of third party sources such as MinistriesToday, Charisma Magazine, The Straits Times and The New Paper, and not from the “Primary Source” only.

• Which particular award in the “Award” section needs further reference to third-party sources?

The article is factual and has adhered to the policies of WIkipedia and not includes personal opinions and arguments. Wikipedia’s policies states that “Primary Sources” and materials from self-published sources may be used in articles about themselves.

Habbo sg 08:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the awards need to be sourced. And yes, primary sources can be used, as long as they are for general information, and not for something that could be seen as "self-aggrandizing". There's also the issue of undue weight. When an article is using more information from primary sources than from third-party sources, there's usually a problem. The fundamental difference is usually that third-party editors want to write about information that is generally notable about a church, whereas those who work at the church want to use the article as a promotional vehicle, to advertise their different programs, sermon schedules, list of pastors, etc. This is why the "secondary source" policy is so important: If something hasn't been deemed interesting enough to have been written about in a secondary source, then it's probably not something that should be included in the Wikipedia article. For example, the section on the "City Harvest Educational Centre" that's currently in the Wikipedia article. Has this actually been written about in a newspaper somewhere? If so, the source should be included. If not, then it's probably not a subject that needs its own section in the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of Wikipedia’s policy is NPOV to prevent the issue of undue weight. Are there any points in the article that are in doubt?

As for using the Wikipedia article as a promotional vehicle, the article does not mention the exact details of their porgrams and schedules, eg. Day and Time. Neither are the names of the pastors made known. Which are the areas in the articles that acts as a promotional tool?

Wikipedia policies does not indicate that information must be “interesting enough” to be written in a secondary source before it can included in a Wikipedia article. What’s important is that Wikipedia states that self-published sources can be used in articles about themselves. Habbo sg 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to "For example, the section on the "City Harvest Educational Centre" that's currently in the Wikipedia article. Has this actually been written about in a newspaper somewhere?" by Elonka

Some newspapers write-ups examples on the “Affiliated Organizations” mentioned in the article.

For example, "City Harvest Educational Centre (CHEC)" was featured in The New Paper on June 1, 2003 in an article titled “Cool School”. Ms Teo Hwee Nak wrote about how the school is helping the school drop-outs and problematic teenagers. TODAY also published an article crediting CHEC for providing teenagers a second chance in life on October 24 2005.

City Harvest Community Services Association (CHCSA) was mentioned from time to time in The Straits Times and LianHe Zao Bao for its community works, notably its humanitarian aid to the Tsunami victims in 2005.

My opinion is that the limited general knowledge of an individual should not dictate whether a section should or should not exist in an article.

Heavyboatman 03:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote once that there seems to be too many "Citation needed" tags in the article. I believe citations are needed when the article is trying to state something as a fact (e.g. statistics, figures, etc.) or that it was stated by a 3rd party or something. Now I have read many Wikipedia articles that states claims and information without citation. I gave an example earlier - the event Singapore 2006 was held in Suntec City. How do we know that is true? There wasn't any 3rd-party or 2nd-party citation to support the fact that the event was held in Suntec. Yet we would accept it as it is, deciding that the edits were in faith. How is this different from the cell group section in this article? Why do you need a citation on the statement that "as the church grows larger in numbers, CGs serves as a place where members can still forge close relationships with fellow Christians in a much smaller setting."? I don't see anyone asking for citation for "Since gaining independence, Singapore has seen its standard of living rise dramatically." in the Singapore article. So what's the difference? Somebody please enlighten me. Atticuslai 06:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here. One is notability: is the statement of interest to an encyclopedia? The second is verifiability: is there a source for the statement? In my opinion, the statement "as the church grows larger in numbers, CGs serves as a place where members can still forge close relationships with fellow Christians in a much smaller setting" is not very notable, particularly for a CHC article -- and if it goes into the cell group article, then there should be a source for it, because it's making several debatable claims (do CGs really work in larger churches? do they really serve for forging close relationships?).

Comparing to other articles is not necessary instructive, because many articles on Wikipedia suck. However, the statement "Singapore 2006 was held in Suntec City" is not controversial (see WP:V), and in the unlikely event that proof was needed, there are lots of other references in the article that mention this. As for the claims about Singapore's standard of living, that statement should be cited and I've just added the cn's there too. Jpatokal 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your notability point. As such, I removed the statement "as the church grows larger in numbers, CGs serves as a place where members can still forge close relationships with fellow Christians in a much smaller setting.". Atticuslai 10:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. In Wikipedia's article, it is stated that Notability guidelines do not directly limit the article's content. Notability is not used to govern the contents of an article. Not every sentence in an article is to be notable or required to meet the standard of the Notability guidelines. The topic of an article should be notable, but not every sentences within the article.

City Harvest Church is notable, and statements on City Harvest Cell Groups can be included in the article.

I have rewritten the statement and given the reference accordingly.

Habbo sg 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my French, but WTF? Do you realize that according to your argument, it would be perfectly acceptable to add completely non-notable crap like "Kong Hee likes ice cream" or "Curry puffs are served at CHC functions"? Jpatokal 00:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Jpatokal, this is not my arguement. I am just stating what's inside the article on Notability. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability.

An extract from the article:

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included
in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of
articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources
and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each
required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.

The examples which you gave is out of context here.

Besides, I had given a secondary source as reference about Cell Groups in City Harvest Church.

Habbo sg 03:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of misleadings of CHC in chinese edition.

CHC in zh.wikipedia.org

Jyyihch 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even the title is somewhat wrong. I have removed all unverified content. Atticuslai 02:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== --Lucky boi (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Changes i made[reply]

1) added the description that the church is independent and non-denominational. To claim that it is the largest church in Singapore would be otherwise untrue, in light of the other denominations eg. Catholic, Methodist, Adventist etc.

2) Deleted assumption that church is 2nd largest in Asia (again, i must highlight that this is excluding denominations; also, the supporting reference is missing, leaving one with doubts as to the claim)

It is the largest church, by sheer membership and weekly attendance. I know there are many denominations in Singapore, and each denomination can have a few churches located around the nation. But I suspect even if we add all the attendance in all the, say, methodist churches, in Singapore in a typical weekly service, CHC will probably still have a larger attendance. I'm sure CHC had put in some effort to verify the claim that it is the largest in Singapore, and 2nd largest in Asia. Atticuslai (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reply claiming belief in a self-cited source is hardly substantiable. If you are sure CHC has put in effort, please cite (from non-CHC sources if possible). Otherwise, both the Methodist Church in Singapore and the denomination of Roman Catholicism in Singapore are vastly larger than CHC. In this case, 32,000 Methodists and 210,000 Roman Catholics, last count. --Lucky boi (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Ahnan & anyone, I suggest that the controversial article about the association between CHC and Benny Hinn needs to be written correctly and relevantly. Last time, a few articles against Benny Hinn were irrelevant but yet they were claimed to be "mixed with CHC". These articles such as "Ministry Watch scrutinizing Benny Hinn", "Do You Believe in Miracles show", "Benny Hinn sending to mailers" & "Benny Hinn's divorce" are not on topic of CHC wikipedia page. Unless these articles are truly involved with both CHC and Benny Hinn, they should be added in Benny Hinn's wikipedia page. They should be separated. Kimberry352 (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to show that Benny Hinn is a controversial figure himself and that CHC is using such controversial person to speak and raise fund in CHC services. The Public have the right to know. It's no use trying to cover up this fact. Are you saying that CHC never works with Benny Hinn, Kimberry? Ahnan (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--> Ahnan, I didn't know about how much CHC uses the measure to show its adoration to Benny. I don't hear how many times/often CHC mentioned him during its services including raise funding. It's just a complicated conjecture.Kimberry352 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact of the matter is, CHC hosted Benny Hinn a few times as a "special" guest to CHC service. This fact has to be disclosed. Ahnan (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Ahnan. How often did CHC 'use' Benny Hinn to raise funding? What is the funding purpose? Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U tell me... you attend CHC... I don't... I only pick up such news from CHC website. Perhaps there were times when Benny Hinn came to CHC and was not reported by CHC... Ahnan (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to copy certain paragraph ( articles dated on Apr 2001 (HBO "A Question of Miracles" show), Mar 2005 (Ministry Watch), Nov/Dec 2006 (BHM; CBC TV) ) from Benny Hinn's wiki page to CHC's wiki page? These articles have nothing to do with CHC.

Whatever it is, it's impt to show that Benny Hinn is a controversial character and that CHC is associating itself with such a character, using him on a number of occasion for CHC service. Pls do not try to hide this fact from the public! Ahnan (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that I try to hide 'this' fact from the public? I think i have no choice but to label it as offtopic. Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, didn't you try to delete the whole chunk of info from CHC article without consultation or explanation at first? That was when I warned you before you stopped it. Ahnan (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that certain article dated on Feb 2010 (Benny Hinn's divorce) is not found in Benny Hinn's wiki page but added in CHC's wiki page only. Regarding Benny Hinn's divorce, it is not relevant to CHC page as it does matter to Benny Hinn's page itself. I wonder why the Feb 2010 article is not mentioned in Benny Hinn's wiki page but CHC's wiki page only.

Are you pretending to be blind? It's there on Benny Hinn's page. In any case, here's the ref - http://cbs2.com/local/benny.hinn.televangelist.2.1503860.html. The objective of mentioning that Benny Hinn's wife is divorcing this "great" pastor is to show how controversial Benny Hinn is. And yet, CHC adores him and uses him... like the old saying, Birds of the same feather flocks together.... of course, we won't say that in the main article :) Ahnan (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--> See my answer after your reply belowKimberry352 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. CHC does not adore Benny Hinn. But CHC has invited him over a few times as guest speaker. Obviously, Kong Hee must be pretty impressed with Benny Hinn to have asked him to come back a few times. Ahnan (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oic.. No commentKimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I know that the irrelevant plagiarised articles have to be revealed in the controversial section of CHC wiki page because of CHC's link with Benny Hinn. Who copied these articles (except Feb 2010) from Benny Hinn's to CHC's wiki page? (I wonder if it was first done by Ahnan.)

Yes, I did it. Can't you read the History section to find out? Are you pretend to be blind again? By the way, I know you are a CHC member but you have been refusing to reveal this fact cause you didn't want people to accuse you being bias to "protect" the sanctity of CHC article? What's the matter? Pastor Kong has to be portrayed as the "perfect" guy to the publc? Ahnan (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--> I don't say that everyone like Pastor Kong is perfect. Like them, churches, temples and mosques are not perfect even although foolish people are waiting for perfect conditions for long time. Yes, sorry I didn't notice it. Just now I found out that the article added in Benny Hinn's wiki page about his wife's divorce was timed and dated on 06:13, 19 February 2010 respectively. But yet this article was excluded from CHC so it is supposed not to be in CHC's wiki page (I know you want to publicise it in this church page although it is irrelevant to CHC). Kimberry352 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CHC is associating itself with a questionable divorced preacher who doesn't even follow the Bible teachings! Didn't the bible said, "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."? So again, we must let the public know that Kong Hee likes to associate himself with this kind of people. Ahnan (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking why Benny's divorce was allowed in the imperfect world although the Bible says no divorce (like what God has joined togehter, no one is allowed to separate. ** Is it true that Kong Hee likes to associate himself with this kind of people?Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kong Hee has invited him over for a few times, right? Obviously, Kong Hee must have liked him a lot to repeatedly invite him over to Singapore! Ahnan (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I beg to differ...these offtopic articles have nothing to do with CHC. If plagiarised articles are looked over, the same information from both wiki pages may change differently as time passes. Maybe the Benny Hinn's link should be added below the controversial article. Kimberry352 (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that either a wiki link to Benny Hinn page will do and only relevant controversial points to be be made will do. I saw the "conversation" on your talk page and I feel that Ahnan is going overboard. I am for the idea of deleting the whole Benny Hinn section or at the most keep a small paragraph relating their relationship. However there is nothing controversial or noteworthy about the relationship. oops. forgot to sign off again --Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xaiver0510, I'm not going overboard. I just want to make sure that the public see the other side of the story of CHC. Kimberry here clearly is a CHC member "disgusing" as a ordinary member of the public. Hence, my crossing swords with him or her. Whatever it is, it's imperative that people reading the CHC article alone should know that they are associating themselves with a controversial character, Benny Hinn. Ahnan (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

** Ahnan, what is the definition of the word 'disguising'?

What's the problem with you? I'm asking you a simple question if you are a CHC member or not? If you are, then answer YES. If not, answer NO. Why is it so difficult for you to answer? Ahnan (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I checked CHC wiki page when I was bored or had free. Now I think I should leave my Wiki account behind. It's complicated for me to decide whether i'm CHC member or CHC attendee. Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it's not complicated enough for you to decide to edit CHC article here and to defend CHC? Ahnan (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the right time and right place to defend CHC? I think the meaning of the word "defend" is different from another word "adovcate". I don't mean to adovcate for CHC but what I feel if the information is indeed relevant, then there will be no point of defending it. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) PS: Now I thought I really wanted to quit Wikipedia account as I realised that I 'am' being "wordily nagged" by the same person, Ahnan. I don't know why he recently replied to me a lot but I try to get used to it. Moreover, I've already reverted the deleted controversial irrelevant paralgarised articles manually before certain Wiki users edited them lately. Btw,I know Wikipedia is more open to all users so they can edit Wiki articles anywhere and anytime compared to more reliable web based encyolopedia such as Factiva. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I really don't mean to fight with you over the 'edit war' on Wikipedia. I know that it should be right to let the public know the controversial articles about CHC like Benny Hinn, Sun Ho, $310m Suntec investment, etc. Some people like you are more lucky to have computer with internet access so that they can use the internet for freedom.

99% of households in Singapore have got internet access. What do you mean "lucky"? What are you trying to say here? Ahnan (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

99% is accurate, isn't it? "Lucky" is like people are fortunate to use computer for different purpose. Hm..Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er... and your point being? What has this got to do with CHC's controversy? Ahnan (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trivial matter. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the freedom of the internet is abused, then sadly many people may like to speculate what something has been happened and will be going to happen (e.g. MM Lee's heart attack was a hoax recently (Mar 2010) ).

Have I been abusing the CHC article? Have I been speculating about CHC happenings? All the stuff I've written is backed up by FACTS! Are you saying that what I've added to CHC article is a "hoax"? This is a very serious allegation and I deem this an attack on my personal integrity. you had better apologize !!!!Ahnan (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sighs... My apology..Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok then Ahnan (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

** Ahnan, 5Proof & other ppl. It is true that it's inevitable that people or the public want to know about the controversial character Benny Hinn's association with CHC. Yes, actually I'm a CHC attendee who also visits other churches like FCBC, VFC and NCC. As a Wikipedia user, I'm trying to be common with relevant and verified sources if I've got time. Ahnan, if I'm not wrong, you are also another member of the public who wants to 'slap' the CHC in writing by adding 'irrelevant' and 'offtopic' articles about the association between CHC and Benny Hinn.

You mean by attempting to reveal the truth of CHC's association with Benny Hinn, I'm "slapping" CHC? How can it be irrelevant when CHC is found to be associating itself with a controversial guy like Benny Hinn? You know in law, if you are associating yourself, say, with an illegal fugitive, you can be prosecuted for that association. That is, the law deemed you to be harbouring a criminal! Ahnan (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"slapping" CHC as in exposing CHC with irrelevant, relevant wrong, right, true or false evidences. As for the imagaination imagaination of associating with myself, i don't have a position to comment it.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't agree with you. CHC's association with such a controversial person as Benny Hinn is impt enough to be let known to the public. Public members are being "pulled" by CHC members to join its church and to contribute money. Public members have the right to know such "controversial" association. Ahnan (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If I'm not wrong, this incident (about Benny calling the congregation to contribute $1,500 each person if desired voluntarily) took place during the Asia Conference 2008. If necessarily, u need to back up this incident with verificable source -- because it is relevant. I could not find any reliable source on internet (besides people's 'opinionated' blog). Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CHC own newsletter revealed this. Go check it out. Ahnan (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnan, can you please list the source of this newsletter acccurately? Citation? Is it in form of CityNews newsletter?Kimberry352 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to write relevant and ontopic controversial content, I would not mind it as long as it is logical and reasonable. Ok, I'm alright with the controversial articles like $310 million Suntec investment as long as its contents are relevant. If these articles of Benny Hinn exclude CHC, then they are irrelevant to CHC's page and they should be added in Benny's wiki page instead.

I've already explained to you a zillion times. We need to explain why Benny Hinn is a controversial figure cause 99% of Singaporeans don't even know who he is or why the association of CHC with Benny Hinn is deemed controversial. Hence, some elaborations are required. Ahnan (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. true.. But I'm concerned that if other churches like NCC and FCBC invite Benny Hinn, then who will like to criticize them the way CHC has been criticized whether it is ontopic or offtopic?Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, if other churches also invite Benny Hinn to their services, pls inform me, I will make sure such controversial associations are highlighted. As far as I know, currently Benn Hinn seems to be only associating with CHC in Singapore. Ahnan (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay..Perhaps.. but yet I'm still thinking if I consider to quit Wikipedia. No matter when the new controversial, inaccurate or vandlised content appears in some wiki pages like CHC's page, I wish I would not see or touch any more disputes in future if I could be given an option to delete my wiki account. (just trivial matter)Kimberry352 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you want to quit wiki or not, that's your own business. I couldn't care less. My business is to ensure that the controversial part of CHC is accurately portrayed and published in wiki for the public to see and to note. The individual public member can then decide if CHC is for them. If after reading the controversial section of CHC, for example, and they still want to attend some of the future Benny Hinn miracle healing sessions hosted by CHC so as to allow this controversial guy to screw themselves, then so be it. At least I've done my part in the public interest. Ahnan (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you 'force' me not to delete the irrelevant paralagrised content, I see my Wiki account might be no longer of good function/use for me to do. Instead, it consumed my time and energy a lot as we (Ahnan & kimberry352) replied a lot compared to other recent editors having web based conversation with u (Ahnan).
Btw, I began to see the light that you are really bold enough to do whatever you want to add controversial content - why only controversial content? How about church controversial issues like Church of Our Saviour Singapore's AWARE takeover controversy? How about non-church controversial issues such as DBS High Note/Minibond Saga, HDB and Private housing rising prices & recently former Romanian Ambassador Dr Ionescu's car accident? Based on your edit history (up to 12 April 2010; 12am Singapore Time), mostly you focused on the criticism against church issues and other peoples' relationship(association) with church. If I'm not wrong, I can remember that your objective is to show the 'truth' to the public who wants to know the negatives side of the entities (churches & peoples' relationship with churches).Kimberry352 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

** Speaking honestly, I am so surprised and don't know about Benny's wife's divorce that was added in CHC's wiki page recently. Again, the article about his wife's divorce is not relevant to CHC as it was excluded from CHC. What is Ahnan's motive of adding offtopic articles like this divorce in CHC's wiki page?

Already explained. CHC is associating itself with a divorced preacher who doesn't practise what the bible said. This fact has to be let known to the public so that the next time CHC invites Benny Hinn to CHC service again, people will know that CHC is inviting a controversial divorced pastor to CHC to preach. Ahnan (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ic. No comment. I am not certain whether CHC didn't mind Benny's divorce. Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

** Before some of the controversial articles (except the article dated Feb 2010 about Benny's wife's divorce) about Benny Hinn were removed, they were copied from Benny's wiki page and pasted into CHC's wiki page at first(earliest edited time of CHC's wiki page: 00:25, 5 April 2010). It was same as plagiarising certain paragraphs from one wiki page(Benny Hinn) to another wiki page(CHC) although these articles from Benny's wiki page were excluded from CHC (In other words, they are irrelevant & offtopic). (I understand why Ahnan wants the public to know the controversial association between CHC and Benny. Yes, he admitted that he was the 1st person who copied these articles from Benny's wiki page and pasted them into CHC's wiki page although they are excluded from CHC.) These articles that were later removed from CHC's wiki page by someone(latest edited time of CHC's wiki page: 17:06, 8 April 2010).

My intention is to reveal the controversy surrounding Benny Hinn and to help readers understand why CHC's association or continued "endorsement" of Benny Hinn reflects badly on CHC itself Ahnan (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to reveal offtopic controversial articles about Benny, maybe the Benny's wiki page's hyperlink should be added under the Benny's controversial section. If ontopic & relevant, it is right for the public to know what happens between CHC and him.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

** Last, I really feel 'threatened' by Ahnan. After he wrote on my talk page 'threatening' me, I might not dare to delete the 'plagiarised' irrelevant articles. I know Ahnan wants to publicize them to the people. Ahnan, i feel as if you are trying to 'attack' me but not other recent editors who removed the same articles?Just now I realised that you also warned recent editors who removed the same articles. I emphasize that these articles are offtopic because they are excluded from CHC. If confirmed that these articles are included in CHC, then I won't be in position to object it. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening you? HAHAHAHAH! Folks, let me quote the message I wrote to Kimberry352: Stop deleting negatives of CHC... or else I'm going to complain to the mods here and have the CHC page put under moderation. I've known all along that Kimberry352 is a member of CHC. After much questioning, he or she has finally revealed that he or she is indeed a member (see above). Under wiki rules, he or she should never delete large chunk of stuff off without informing the writer or giving a reason. Is my statement threatening? I will leave it to the good people here to decide. Ahnan (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed. Negatives of CHC which are not relevant to Benny Hinn based on how mutually inclusive both CHC and he are. If they are mutually inclusive, I am okay. Certain controversial articles like Benny's divorce clearly show that it excludes CHC so they should not be accepted into CHC's wiki page. Other controversial articles like Benny's call to raise funding at CHC are supposed to be added into CHC's wiki page.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Kimberry352, are you threatening me too? You said to me on your talk page: I was thinking of making a complaint against you; however I could not do that as I am not familar with ways of how to make a report to Wikipedia moderator. HAHA! Ahnan (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed again. Communicating over internet without face to face communication may be hard to describe what we can talk and feel. Ahnan, I'm thinking we should meet up face to face. Pls see your own wiki's page.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Folks, I just want to highlight the fact here that Kimberry352 is a member of the City Harvest Church (CHC). He or she has admitted as such after much cross examination (see above). Please take note all.Ahnan (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

----> maybe true but I am yet to decided if I'm CHC attendee or member. I also attend FCBC alternately weekly. For your info, I consider to leave CHC only if it preaches false doctrines and there is no effort for me to raise issues.Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, even as a "partial" attendee of CHC, you feel enough for CHC to come out here to defend it. You didn't disclose your link to CHC until now after being cross examined here. And now, you are trying to back out by saying you "haven't" decided if you are going to be a member of CHC or not. Hence, attempting to show that there is no COI afterall. Aren't you like that disciple of Jesus whom when asked about his association with Jesus when Jesus was caught by the Roman soldiers, he denied so? HAHA!Ahnan (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I'm from CHC or not, I still observe around CHC. I went to Asia Conference 2008 where Benny Hinn came to preach about healing. Btw, like what i said just now, the controversial articles about Benny were already reverted manually before they were edited lately. It's ur choice to edit them. I might not dare to make them correct again.Kimberry352 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nevermind Ahnan (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

As re-itterated above, there's already a link to Benny Hinn in the main article. Adding the so much detail from that article here is redundant, so a summary suffices. Also, as far as the parts about his finances, it is irrelevant to the article unless he has a hand in the financial dealings of the church in question (If so please provide references). Ahnan's desire to "reveal the truth" is commendable, but only to the extent of keeping it tightly relevant to the article. Do not needlessly bloat the article.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the article shows (1) CHC's association with the controversial faith healer Benny Hinn is recorded and (2) a description to tell the public why Hinn was controversial in the firs place to supplement point (1), then I'm ok. Without (2) and just merely mentioning (1), readers could be wondering what's the fuss about Ahnan (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is mentioned specifically?Kimberry352 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See my reply to Zhanzhao above Ahnan (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree with Ahnan on this point — we should just remove all of the Benny Hinn stuff. There's no reason for point 1 without point 2 and since there is no reason for point 2 (other than in support of point 1) then we should get rid of all of it. Which means I also agree with Kimberrry352 (as far as I can tell). Is there anything left to do? Can we just delete that section now? SQGibbon (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.........................................
[offtopic] Sighs.. recently I am very shocked to discover that Ahnan (Wiki username) 'gossips' to people in online discussion forum called 3in1KOPI -- See it at CHC member wants to meet me f-to-f woh.. I had no idea why. Ahnan who is also kojakbt_89 (3in1KOPI username) of 3in1KOPI forum discussed to these people over the online forum. As for ur info, I posted him [[4]] at his talk page for a face to face meeting for better communication regarding Benny's offtopic and any other business topics. Now, I can't believe that he is more than wagging his tongue & speaking about others and reveal private things (e.g. i will give you my non-personal (or personal) email). I am not sure if he brings his 'puppet(s)' to meet me personally. No boundary knows ages, races, languages and religions. Sighs.. What should I do?=( Kimberry352 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5Proof (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Kimberry352, just because you or your church members don't like bad publicity doesn't make it 'irrelevant'. It might be 'irrelevant' to you and your ink, but it not 'irrelevant' not to the general public which do have the right to know what CHC is all about. Take this advise; trying to censor the truth will not serve anyone any good, including yourselves. 5Proof (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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