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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Why is this page being considered for deletion? Would like to work out any problems, and not just jump to deletion. If you've noticed, I've been working on the page daily trying make it neutral as possible while giving information that people would find helpful about this organization. Will be adding Inline Citations soon as possible. This page has a reason to exist, and has reason to exist full of information about the organization, positive and negative. This page is highly trafficked, and we must try to provide all necessary information in this article. -travisharger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are there any suggestions on wording to make it appear less of a fan site? I've personally have tried hard at keeping it neutral, and am unsure how to do much of a better job. The information I've included, I think is important, interesting, and worthy to remain in the article. But might need help from everyone else in cleaning it up a little more. The definition of what makes this an advocacy page is not solid, everyone has different opinions...if you have a suggestion...we can all discuss it and i'm sure we can come to a conclusion. This comment will also be posted in the discussion page.Travisharger 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The inline references being added are to blogs or primary sources...references need to be reliable and third party, blogs are neither. TeapotgeorgeTalk 14:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They all have to be third party? What about specific information about their ministry? I'm in the process of adding a variety of inline citations...many will be third party online, books, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Comment This page is a prima facie example of the yellow journalism for which Wickedpedia has become so well known and will keep conscionable people from ever supporting it. It's patently obvious that the entire purpose of the page is to associate "evangelical charismatic Pentecostal Christian(ity)" with scandal, murder and sexual immorality by the very people who love sexual immorality and despise God and this hatred is why Wickedpedia is a primary forum for attacking Christianity, Christian ministers and Christians.76.6.71.79 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for righting great wrongs. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
undid revisions by User talk:SuaveArt---I think much of that information is valuable to readers...and we should discuss what should be removed among the editors. after his revisions..the article didn't even explain what the organization did anymore...also some criticisms were removed. I think an effort to reword, reorganize, while leaving important information would be a better choice. The use of the term fancruft is a funny word, And I would accuse some members of being biased in their deletionist efforts...they're are many other articles that seem like promotional sites, yet they seem to only target certain articles..the Simpsons, Dan brown, Salvation Army seem to be filled with information some might view as worthless and promotional and the argument of "hacking back" information could be made...yet they remain. What separates the International House of Prayer from say John Mayer, Bon Jovi, or Disneys Aladin? Travisharger 02:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed some citations...couple of the citations were marked with a failed verification flag..one was a correct flag..the other two were incorrect and the flag shouldn't have been there. Just to clear up any confusion, the "Entreaties" reference...is to a newspaper article that appeared frontpage in the kansas city star...not an Online article. you would have to look up the archives. not sure if that was the reason it was marked as failed.Travisharger 05:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The major improvements[1] made by User talk:SuaveArt should be re-instated they made the article more readable, encyclopedic and understandable and they were certainly NOT vandalism!. TeapotgeorgeTalk 10:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article failed to even explain simply what the organization did...Travisharger 14:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)
If you can cite verifiable, independent AND reputable sources for what the IHOP (Kansas City) does please include them at the appropriate places. 122.163.104.23 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops got logged out by mistake. Annette46 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before the article was butchered, there was a list of references and citations that matched(CBN, Christianity Today, Kansas City Star, Charisma Magazine, Books, Journals, and other websites)and explained what IHOP did and how they are a part of a larger 24-7 prayer movement.)...citations made more sense, but i'm too tired to care any more. If everybody thinks wiki is better served educating people about pop culture and not controversial organizations thats fine. I never really cared that much, just thought more information about the organization would be helpful to people searching for information.---if anyone cares to do the work, I'll offer my list of references to them to help build the article. But i'm moving on to other articles. And anyone searching for information about this organization, I'm sorry I tried my best to provide it...you'll just have to search more important articles like Shia LaBeouf, Michael Jordan, and Family Guy in your spare time. Travisharger 21:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Should the article title be changed to "International House of Prayer (Kansas)" to avoid confusion? TeapotgeorgeTalk 18:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, it would be less confusing...there are also denominations called house of prayer..Christian's are good at confusing people with their denominations.Travisharger 21:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
actually it should be International House of Prayer (Kansas City)...its technically in Missouri.Travisharger 13:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It should be IHOP KC to avoid any confusion with other IHOP organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.230.191.36 (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it once...but the statement is in accurate...the article cited is obvious referring to the time the reporter was in the prayer room or watching the live feed....IHOP's prayer room doesn't have "meetings"....it is a meeting...one long 24/7 prayer meeting that has been going on for over 10 years...and televised must refer to its live 24-7 web-stream and a GODtv feed that jumps in random times throughout the week.....the prayer room can go from 100 people to 900 people depending...besides the prayer room, IHOP host other meetings throughout the week for teachings...some of these are televised on GODtv or the live web-stream as well...those numbers are usually around 1000 or 2000...IHOP refers to them as EGS (Encounter God Services) on Friday/Saturday and their Sunday church service is called FCF (Forerunner Christian Fellowship). The "attendance at their televised meetings is about 200" is an inaccurate statement and a bad reading of the article. I suggest removing it entirely for failed verification as well as not being important to the article.Travisharger 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing notable about this to warrant inclusion in wiki unless we are going to add every tiny little road side church. 75.191.151.75 (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have resources I need to cite but I can not find an easier way than the reference button. HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyBuchanan (talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its obvious there is no interest in providing a fair and balanced point of view on this page and that this is strictly and puff piece. Any attempt at writing a piece on the controversey that this orginazation has casused regardless of its wording is immediatley deleted. This is socialist mis-information. I thought this was about freedom of information but I see I was mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.140.198 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment was added to the article by IP82.31.140.137, referring to Mike Bickle: "(this is incorrect Mike Bickle moved to Grandview, Kansas City in 1982 to pastor a church, he still pastors the same church which has been meeting in the same building for many years. As can be seen from a current look at the IHOP website this is known as Forerunner Christian Fellowship)", moved to here. Edgepedia (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
This is a message to TheRoadIsLong
Regarding my post on IHOP which you deleted (this was my first ever post on Wikipedia) I thank you if you posted a message on my help page, but it was quite general so leaves me feeling slightly confused as to what exactly I did wrong so there are a number of questions I would like to ask (1) Should I have asked permission from someone before editing the page (2) Was it the fact that it referred to other 'IHOPs' not directly related to IHOP KC (3) Is there any other way that my proposed addition of content would be acceptable on WikiPedia. There are some other minor questions but I think they depend on the answers to the above three questions. Your help and input would be much appreciated as, I think pointed out by you, this is my first attempted post. Regards and thanks for your input Philip Philanderson888 (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content you added was very promotional, in a tone not suitable for an encyclopaedia.Theroadislong (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is bad. I've not reviewed the revision history, but as it stands on 8/22/2012 most of the article sounds like it could be promotional material from the organization's website. On top of that it uses in-language and evangelical verbiage like "God's Purposes for Israel." It does not read like an encyclopedia article. --Rex Diablo (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What total hypocrisy! Have you looked at the National Geographic Society page? (Or ANY OTHER page by ANY organization that is founded on atheistic principles? You won't find this "concern" about "promotion" on any of those talk pages!) It is totally "very promotional!" Not one word mentioning that *everything they do* attacks the authority of God's Word and promotes the lie of evolution *which has ZERO evidence* (NOT ONE IOTA) *supported by the scientific method* yet, without a shadow of a doubt, evolution is promoted in some form or fashion in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE written in or by National Geographic, yet you've made no effort to criticize or correct that page OR to illustrate and reveal this bias and expose the TOTALLY ONE-SIDED position and NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE! This demonstrates how your "concern" for objectivity applies ONLY FOR THAT WHICH YOU DISAGREE--THE TRUE MARK OF A LYING HYPOCRITE.
God haters are such hypocrites and your involvement in Wickedpedia will forever keep it from the respect it desires. If it were not for the promotion Wickedpedia gets from the search engines, they would really be struggling.76.6.71.79 (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for personal attacks and rants. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final question to [User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong] - would ANY entry or reference to IHOP London be acceptable? I think in an unbiased encyclopaedia it would be good to include the influence of this organisation around the world, which is considerable. If I found some published article mentioning this, would THAT be the key to acceptability? I am keen to work on this to make sure work is to published standards, although since this is my first attempted post it may take a little while to achieve! Philanderson888 (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine all content should be referenced to third party reliable sources. Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to present this link here: [2] I would be grateful if I could be guided in that regard.
213.213.139.124 (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like edit warring over this any more, but I want some outside opinion.
Does this page belong in the categories for religious organizations, or does it belong in denominations?
I have just modified one external link on International House of Prayer. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.
Done Edgepedia (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
