Talk:Mike Bickle (minister)

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

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)

npov

Kelly - just because people believe something about Bickle and it can be footnoted does not mean it isn't pov: both sides of the discussion need to be represented. Tillin's position is clearly against Bickle: that doesn't mean her pov shouldn't be represented, but it shouldn't be the only one. Also calling him cultic is likely to fall foul of WP:BLP, and is also pov. Just saying something is controversial, and then not saying by who is weasel words. Could you reconsider your position? Hyper3 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Kelly I believe your edits to Mike Bickle contravene wikipedia policy. Would you read WP:SPS and let me know if you agree? Using Tricia Tillin (for example) as a footnote wouldn't be a good enough source for it to be reliable, because anyone can publish their views and claim to be a source. Also, according to WP:GRAPEVINE it is important not to make defamatory accusations against living persons, and that material must be removed immediately. Calling someone's ministry "cultic in nature" amounts to this. Also, the word "cult" should be used in its scholarly sense whenever possible. A third issue is that we should avoid weasel words WP:AWW. Saying something is "widely considered controversial" amounts to this. I'm sorry that I have to keep removing this material, and hope you will understand. If you were able to refer to the sections I have suggested, I think together we could improve the article. Hyper3 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hyper. Allow me to take your talking points, well..."point-by-point", if I may:

- Calling someone's ministry "cultic in nature" amounts to this. Also, the word "cult" should be used in its scholarly sense whenever possible.

If you re-read what I wrote, I didn't conclude that Bickle and his ministries actually are "cultic in nature", I said that there are those (and those with experience in the area of cults) who see his leadership as cultic in nature. In fact, if you do a web search, you will find dozens of results which address what others see as cult-like activity and teaching by Bickle, in Bickle's church and at IHOP-KC. And please...there's no defamatory statements being made here - if he's on the lists of cult-watchers (and he is, believe me), then the information is important and factual and even encyclopedic but definitely not defamatory. I don't see any problem with including that fact in the article whatsoever - in fact, including that information rounds out the article to a more NPOV framework - deliberately *not* including it is what makes the article sanitized and unbalanced.

- Saying something is "widely considered controversial" amounts to this

There's no weasling going on here - the fact is that the Latter Rain theology and movement have been and still are widely controversial amongst mainline churches, some charismatic churches, and amongst Christian theologians. Heck, even the AOG condemned Latter Rain theology in 1949. I think it's a good idea to include Bickle's statement that he's trying to distance himself from Latter Rain, however (and this is a big however), when so much of what he teaches revolves around Joel's Army, personal prophecy, and typological interpretation of Scripture, it's no wonder so many insist that Bickle is Latter Rain based on what he teaches, what he does, and by whom he has been influenced. Look, it's no differant than saying Barack Obama's policies are socialistic in nature - while Obama has never come out and said he's a Socialist and there has been no official declaration that he desires to see the US become a Socialist country, it's hard to deny that the things he has said (Joe the Plumber) and the things he has already done (taking over GM) and the things he would like to do (a nationalized health care system) do not have Socialism written all over them (not to mention the Socialist/Marxist people in his past he says were his mentors). I'm not saying Bickle is Latter Rain, what is being said is that what he says and does and teaches and preaches is *very* Latter Rain in nature. But hey...don't forget that I'm not the only one who's saying it...

- Using Tricia Tillin (for example) as a footnote wouldn't be a good enough source for it to be reliable, because anyone can publish their views and claim to be a source.

First of all, Tillin wasn't the only reference I included. Secondly, anyone can and most do publish their views online, in blogs, and in books - if those views are diametrically opposed to a particular viewpoint, that's called a differing or dissenting viewpoint. And don't forget, we're talking theologcial ideologies here. It's not as if theology outside of historical events or archeological discoveries proving certain historical events is an exact science - it's steeped in opinion - differing and otherwise! From what I have seen of many, many other articles in Wikipedia regarding theological, Biblical, sectarian, etc. beliefs and understanding, it is quite common and perfectly acceptible (especially with controversial or fringe beliefs) to also have in that article references to other viewpoints. But I've got to be honest...I am sensing here that because the references I included are not complmentary to Bickle and his ministries that is the reason why you want them removed. So...in light of that - I have to ask if you are in any way affilliated with Bickle and/or any of his ministries (or any of his theologies and associates) which would make you decidedly biased.

- I think together we could improve the article.

I hope that together we can improve the article. However, if your idea of improving the article is making it completely favorable to Bickle and removing anything factual that might be seen as unfavorable to him or IHOP-KC, working together is not something I'm interested in. Thanks for the discussion - I look forward to your replies. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My idea of improving the article involves keeping the guidelines involved. There are so many disagreements and opinions in religion based articles that the only way to conduct a productive dialogue about such encyclopaedia entries is to respect the protocol. Where this happens, I think there is a genuine contribution. I'm not sure your last comment (or previous implications of bias) are good examples of WP:AGF... It is important to assume that others who contribute are attempting to do the right thing. Its best not to insinuate bias, or make derogatory comments about other wikipedia users. I'm sure you would want the same. In fact, you have removed much that was unfavourable to Bickle, some of which should probably be restored to regain the npov... Hyper3 (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there was no implication of bias in my last comments to you - I asked you specifically if you were afilliated with Bickle, IHOP, or any of his affiliates in the interest of Wikipedia policy regarding conflict of interest (and, BTW, these are questions you still have not answered). But...moving on - the recent changes to the Mike Bickle article are, IMO, quite good and show a decent rounding out and balance to the article. Thanks for taking the time to do them - I think the edits have solved this mini-dispute quite well. BTW - I am still quite interested in your answers to my questions. I hope you will take the time to answer them. Thanks - SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A horrible mess...

This article is a real mess. It's formatted horribly and is very confusing to edit. The references are done really badly and actually, not very Wiki-like. Additionally, it has vascillated back and forth as an advertisement for Bickle and IHOP and being very POV. It needs an overhaul - big time. I'm not interested enough in the article to spend much more time on it, however, I have put it on my watchlist to keep an eye on edits here. My personal opinion is that it has been written and reworked continually by those with a definite WP:COI. Someone, who might be interested, could clean it up and turn it into a decent NPOV, encyclopedia article...? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

From your lips to god's ears

Amazing, after all this time, that assumption of expertise brought to these attemtps at a reputable encyclopaedia: Sweeping edits and trashing contributions manifest a disregard for professional cooperation.

The article as it was, was not bad until it was trashed by the self appointed.

Cooperate, make changes after you discuss merit or lake thereof of any changes. People who make such massive edits should be locked out. This article is a classic example of how not to produce a credible source of information. Malangthon (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the "self-appointed" you are referring to...?

Disputing PROD-Concern

• Keep: If article creator can greatly improve sight. I'll will gladly work on this page, if no one else does, in the next two days to add notability, third party-references, and reason for inclusion to the wiki database. Mike Bickle is very well known author, Christian leader, possible cult leader, has had plenty of coverage on Christian TV, news, magazines, other books..A quick Google search will show you that. He also runs a yearly conference of over 20,000 students. Very notable outside of his congregation.....I agree this article is a mess and needs a lot of work. I would appreciate a couple days to get it done.Travisharger 12:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)

• Keep: I agree with Travisharger that Bickle is well known in Christian circles. If you want to work on expanding it, Travis, I will be happy to look in as another eye and help with some copyediting. Together, I imagine the article can improve greatly. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorsement section

I believe the following section should be removed and possibly others.

"As a lifelong missiologist, I cannot help but think that the landscape of humanity will drastically change when the body of Christ actually becomes a house of prayer. Mike Bickle has risked it all to convince us of this fact. I heartily recommend this amazing work!" Dr. C. Peter Wagner, Wagner Leadership Institute

It is NOT encyclopaedic, the person quoted has no notability (no Wiki article). Are we to quote every Tom, Dick or Harry who has an opinion on Bickle? The article has been extensively edited by coi single purpose accounts too. Teapotgeorge^Talk 11:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. JosiahHenderson (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

C. Peter Wagner has a substantial influence in the charismatic world, which is very relevant to the topic at hand. He's not a random Tom, Dick, or Harry as you put it. DavidPesta (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

C. Peter Wagner Endorsement

Dr. Peter Wagner does have a wiki page. This can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Peter_Wagner. The endorsements added are to contrast the criticism in the previous section thus helping to provide balance and neutrality to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertigo58 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added the correct link to the endorsement section thank you for your help.Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

This article has been extensively edited by coi single purpose accounts. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and the tag should not be removed again. Doc talk 22:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike Bickle's biography or lack thereof

I am 65 years old and in my lifetime I have come across a couple of scams that seemed suspiciously similar.

I am a Jew. When I was a teenager there was a pamphlet going around offering Jewish youth membership in a "fraternity" called Mu Sigma. It appealed to the feeling of being left out and excluded as Jews from the frat scene. My Jewish friends and I rejected joining the "frat" because we didn't feel left out of anything; we lived in a very well socio-economic and ethnically integrated neighborhood. We all had non-Jewish friends and did not want to join anything that left them out.

Years later, probably in the mid 1970's, in New York City there appeared a bunch of people wearing black capes and the Egyptian Ankh symbol around their necks. They were passing out leaflets trying to get people to join a "religion" called "The Way" (or something like that, to the best of my recollection) I took a pamphlet and read it. The text was very similar to the text in the Mu Sigma pamphlet I had read years before. I was appealing to people's feelings of being "left out" etc. And offered membership in a group that would be "warm and welcoming."

At that time I felt that the person or people behind this cult scheme were the same as the people who had tried to get Jewish teen boys to pay money to join a fraternity years before.

Now I have heard a story (on NPR) about a book written about an ultra-conservative Evangelical group called the International House of Prayer. And the fact that the initials are the same as the large pancake house (which seems like a sly joke) and the fact that there is a related group called "TheWay" or something like that really makes me harken back to the other cult-like scams I came across years ago.

The only thing I can find out is that IHOP is that it is run by this guy, Mike Bickle. Yet I can find no biographical information on him that might tie him into these earlier ventures. For some reason, I "smell" a connection. How old is Bickle, where did he come from and what were his earlier games? Was he behind the Jewish fraternity scam? The good looking young girls in black capes with an ankh symbol (which was related to "free and open-sex" in the 70's) walking around Manhattan in the 70's? I would really like to know more about this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chefhenry (talk • contribs) 14:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080612014112/http://www.charismamag.com:80/display.php?id=10627 to http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=10627

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.morningstarministries.org/pages/special_bulletins/SB_Current.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mike Bickle (minister)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

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)

Last edited at 01:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 00:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Bickle (minister). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830050324/http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/features/2010/november/29497-we-wont-stop-praying to http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/features/2010/november/29497-we-wont-stop-praying
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/return-of-the-prophets/Content?oid=2166879

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Was Mike Bickle really fired from Metro Christian Fellowship?

The article currently says:

In 1999, Bickle was fired from the church that he was pastoring, Metro Christian Fellowship, then a megachurch of over three thousand members. He then started the International House of Prayer (also known by its acronym IHOPKC).

This is footnoted with a link to an article entitled "Round-the-clock prayer group trades riches for religion", which says:

In 1999, he left his job as senior pastor of a 3,000-member church in Grandview, Mo., to set up an "International House of Prayer" where 12 teams of people pray around the clock for the world.

(I don't have access to the full source of the article, but this is in the introduction). This clearly doesn't describe him as being fired. In addition, I can't find any information searching on the web that implies that he was fired.

So as far as I can see this is an unsourced claim. Could it be replaced with "Bickle stopped working for the church that he was pastoring"?

Davidfraser (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)