Talk:Mike Bickle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mike Bickle article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: This article was given a Start Class. It needs DOB, Family info, and Afiliation info. It was given a low importance because there was no relevance. I belive that he is a relevant person but it must be written into the article. The long list of citations is impresive but is it necessary?  Gabriello  talk  20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Citations needed? Probably. See history, 1 February 2008 Mike Doughney "A reputable third-party published report on these matters must be cited, per WP:BLP. Letting stand with appropriate tags for now." Vandals kept removing statements and claimed they were unsubtaintiated. Note that 66.140.65.169 on January 30, 2008 are from Bickle's office (Friends of the Bridegroom) so perhaps they can provide bio information requested. Heartofdavid (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (edit)

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (rated as Low importance)
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) This article was given a Start Class. It needs DOB, Family info, and Afiliation info. It was given a low importance because there was no relevance. I belive that he is a relevant person but it must be written into the article. The long list of citations is impresive but is it necessary?  Gabriello  talk  20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Citations needed? Probably. See history, 1 February 2008 Mike Doughney "A reputable third-party published report on these matters must be cited, per WP:BLP. Letting stand with appropriate tags for now." Vandals kept removing statements and claimed they were unsubtaintiated. Note that 66.140.65.169 on January 30, 2008 are from Bickle's office (Friends of the Bridegroom) so perhaps they can provide bio information requested. Heartofdavid (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Reliable Sources in Biographies of Living Persons

I think the page I linked to is pretty clear that "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Never seems strong and does not seem to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. If you are referring to primary and secondary in terms of importance, it does seem problematic that so many of the citations are secondary in nature. If you are using it in the sense of primary sources being written by the subject and secondary sources being written about the subject then the sources by Mr. Bickle are acceptable and the self-published sources by others about Mr. Bickle do not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's standard of "reliable sources." The article previously linked is quite strong in saying that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified" and further "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." The point here is that the wikipedia standard is to aggressively remove information and citations unless they can be firmly established. This is emphasized numerous times in the literature especially due to laws concerning libel. It seems the policy of Wikipedia is that unless a reliable source (not self-published) can be cited the information needs to be removed agressively, especially if it is contentious. Furthermore, in response to a previous comment, the presence of information or a citation elsewhere in wikipedia does not establish it as verifiable or reliable.

Additionally, it looks like the article by Mr. Gibson is also self-published.

21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Doughney, it would be helpful to have your input here on the remaining self-published cites.

Heartofdavid (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Removed cite from cephas journal which is more specific about Bob Jones requiring women to stand naked while he propehcied to them. Admittedly, this is a self-published source, although it agrees with other anecdotal accounts. The cite from Christianity Today, which states "Vineyard leaders took strong steps recently to discipline well-known "prophet" Bob Jones after Jones admitted to "Sexual misconduct (not adultery)" with two women." should suffice for this article. Would be interesting to do a wiki page on Bob Jones.

Heartofdavid (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you caught me right in the middle of another edit, adding more citations. It is my understanding that self-published cites ARE allowable, but not as Primary sources. In the case of Strom his article (and now his book which you can buy on Amazon) were widely distributed and serves as evidence that there are detractors, which some seem to have trouble believing. So it should stand.

Gruen's report is reference elsewhere on wikipedia, and I think it should stand as a secondary citation, as it, according to accounts in Christianity Today and other magazines, was a crucial document in the happenings with Bickle and the KCP circa 1990-1991. It was reformatted (from the original 233 page report and posted on the web by Tillian's organization, which means it was not "self-published."

There are a few other citations, again not primary citations, but backup documentation, needed to support assertions such as those regarding the saga of Bob Jones and his work with Mike Bickle. Again, I think they should stand.

I'd like to restore, and add a few more cites. Let's talk about this.

Heartofdavid (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though many of the citations in this article are what are called "self-published sources." Much of the citations are either from Mike Bickle's own organization's webpage or from articles that others self-published on the internet. "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer" see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. It seems however, that there is an exception with regards to self-published sources by the individual the article is about. They are allowed as valid sources of information. So it seems as though the self-published sources by Mr. Bickle and his organization are permitted but the sources from Ms. Tillin, Mr. Strom, Mr. Gruen and others are not valid sources. It seems as though they should be removed. Any thoughts in this regard?

Clargary (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Mike's teaching emphasizes how to grow in passion for Jesus through intimacy with God. IHOP is promoting a extravagant, radical, militant group who believes they are going to become gods, eat from the tree of life,(and therefore live forever) and purge the church of unbelievers, finally ruling with Christ for 1000 years with an iron rod." There, ladies and gentlemen, is your POV. In fact, we have two conflicting POV's in adjacent sentences. MJSkia1 00:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct in a couple of areas but very off in a couple of others. Yes, Mike's teachings emphasize growing in passion for Jesus through intimacy with God. IHOP does promote extravagent obedience and radical love for Jesus. But IHOP is by no means a militant group. They practice the beatitudes of Matthew 5. The pursue a sermon on the mount lifestyle. They believe that the truest place of "fighting" is in the place of intercession, on thier knees before the throne of God.

Mike Bickle, the director of the International House of Prayer, places an emphasis on complete surrender to Jesus Christ, knowing the love that Christ has for His bride (the church), and the end times (eschatology).

:I was just quoting the article to explain why I put the disputed neutrality tag up. MJSkia1 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

IHOP does not teach or believe that they will become gods, as quoted above. They are not militant. That is not correct.

IHOP is one of the most biblically sound places I have ever been.

Not sure where MJSKIia1 is getting his information? IHOP/Bickle in NO way teaches that people will become gods. There is no purging of unbeleivers or ruling with an iron rod. IHOP teaches conservative Christian theology which is Jesus crucified for the human race which he loves in an extravagant way. There is also a huge emphasis on being holy and loving God and others.

• Comment pasting the statement of belief from their website is bad form. An external link would be much more appropriate. It's okay to correct invidious errors, but Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. Please consider editting the content to be NPOV. I'm willing to give it a shot, but not now, as I'm a bit busy.

Aminorex 06:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

hi this seems to be a very bias peice..there is no mention of the kansas city prophets,mike was a main player in that group..the group seemed to generate extreame opinions for and against in many christians...more worrying is that ihop as been the subject of various debates (see sermon index for example)..around the subject of bridal theology,with some people arguing that ihop have lowered the doctrine of the bride and bride groom into a nearly romantic relationship..see andrew storms site for various peices on this subject wov1

The quote "..rejected the doctrine of the Trinity." directly contradicts the current stated doctrinal position on his website: "WE BELIEVE that the one true God exists eternally in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that these, being one God, are equal in deity, power, and glory." If rejecting the Trinity is something he USED to do, he certainly doesn't do so now. Confident confessions boldly proclaimed on a website do not come overnight, he must have changed his belief about this a long time ago. Why judge the man based upon something that he used to think?

---

Knowing Mike's background, I would find it extremely surprising if he denied the trinity even long ago. I believe the statement that he denied the trinity is not and never was true of Bickle.

• Comment "Bickle himself says he hates this term some people have chosen to label him, Jones, Paul Cain, and John Paul Jackson." This sentence doesn't make any sense. Sounds like they are labeling him after a law firm. BLW 9/6/2007

[edit] Regarding Bickle's Association with the Joseph Company

I have removed the paragraph that cites (using an unreliable source) that Bickle is "closely associated" with the Joseph Company, a fact that has not been substantiated. Likewise, I removed the part about the Joseph Company because it cannot be shown as relevant to an article about Mike Bickle the person.

Furthermore, citing a web archive from 2003 is hardly acceptable. The fact that one can no longer find that on the Joseph Company's website suggests that the information is not up to date, and therefore cannot be confirmed to be accurate.

Neither is it relevant to an article about Mike Bickle the person to mention how much revenue is taken in by the International House of Prayer.

I, for one, suggest a complete re-write of this article, or a deletion, given that there really is not any verified and sourced information here regarding Mike Bickle the person.

StopTheSpin 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I totally understand your objections to those two things. I have no personal involvement or real interest in Mike Bickle or IHOP; I attended a onething event recently, that's the only way i know who they even are. I also haven't had much of an involvement in the writing of this article. If you google search "Joseph Company" along with "Mike Bickle" you'll get plenty of stuff - it certainly seems like he created it more or less, it's an IHOP ministry if you go to the other link that was there. Since his main thing is leading IHOP, the revenue seems pretty relevant.

First of all, is the double indent proper etiquette? I have several thoughts on this. I actually have issues with the whole article, which is why I suggested a re-write. First of all, one can not simply say that Bickle is "closely associated" with the Joseph Company without sourcing that. It simply cannot be inferred from the fact that it is a ministry under IHOP that Bickle is therefore closely associated with it. It could be an independently run entity, for example. Bickle is not listed as part of the Joseph Company staff. Given that, I think it is hardly acceptable to simply say that he is "closely associated" with the Joseph Company. What does that even mean? It's too open ended, and certainly not backed up with any sources. The lack of reliable sources on the subject does not justify one in making an unsourced claim that really needs to be sourced.

Furthermore, it seems that tying the two sentences together the way it was done in the article conveys that Mike Bickle is trying to take over the wealth of the world. That simply is beyond the pale. It is possible to report facts in such a way as to distort the truth. It needs clarification. And I emphatically stand by my claim that the accuracy and reliability of information cited from a web archive from 2003 is highly questionable.

Regarding the revenue, I still do not think it relevant to an article about Mike Bickle. It is more relevant to an article about the International House of Prayer. These are just my thoughts. I am a big fan of factual information that is actually informative.

That said, I definitely think the article needs a re-write. The only two RS's I've found thus far are The Pitch and CBN. I think the best thing would be to find a way to chronicle his life, the controversy with the KC Prophets, the Ernie Gruen Report and what it discussed, involvment with Vineyard and Bob Jones, and Gruen's subsequent backing down. It's hard to find sources because there hasn't been much said from an NPOV honestly. So those are my thoughts, been planning on implementing some of that soon but you're more than welcome to start doing so. Welcome to Wikipedia. Gatorgalen 03:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I'm likely going to make mistakes, but I'll be bold nonetheless. I would suggest that we try to formulate this article along the same lines as the wiki article about John Piper. This article, like that one, needs sections. It will take some effort, but we should be able to produce an article that is true to the facts and unbiased. Indeed, if such an article cannot be produced, then the article about Mike Bickle ought to be deleted until an unbiased presentation becomes possible. Again, these are my thoughts. And perhaps as an interesting note, it took me 5 minutes to figure out how to make the IHOP and John Piper wiki links. StopTheSpin 04:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this count? From the Joseph Company page, http://www.ihop.org/group/group.aspx?id=23144, hosted under and linked from the IHOP site: "Prior to co-founding the Joseph Company with Mike Bickle, Bob [Fraser] founded NetSales Inc., a back-office e-commerce provider that became the Kansas City metro area's fastest growing company during the late 1990's. In 2000, Bob was awarded the Midwest Region Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award." BLW - 09/06/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.15.168 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)