Talk:Thomas Muthee

The focus of this article

In light of the revelatory principle professed by Hobartimus (talk · contribs) here, that "the topic of the article is Muthee not anything else" I move that Muthee's involvement with the witch doctor and with humanitarian work be removed from the article, and the page replaced with "Thomas Muthee is a notable man." Although I'm not sure about the "man" part, as that seems to dwell overmuch on Muthee's relationship with masculinity rather than Muthee himself. the skomorokh 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The context of Palin's 2008 VP campaign needs to be re-added

Please re-add the contextualization that this all became international news because of her 2008 VP campaign. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to this person's biography - nor indeed is anything in the Wasilla AoG section, which should probably be trimmed further under WP:UNDUE. Because you or others learned about him for that reason is not why he merits an article. That material is just an attempt to use this article as a coatrack to discuss something else, and was the reason for considering this article for deletion. Sound editorial practice will be to keep that data out of this article. GRBerry 17:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GRBerry. Hobartimus (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree as I think there are numerous ways to simply state - Muthee's connection to Palin was highlighted as part of the lengthy 2008 presidential election - or similar. Otherwise is does seem purely coatrack-ish. The reason this information is notable was not so much of it occurring during the governor election but that it was brought to wide attention as a part of the VP vetting process. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Banjeboi. People coming to this page will expect to see something about Muthee's relationship to Palin since that's why he's making the news right now. As was explained in the deletion discussion, COATRACK is not wikipedia policy and not a valid reason to delete an article. Although the Palin material should not be allowed to overwhelm the article, the removal of any mention of Palin smacks of POV-pushing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If Muthee has substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, especially if it is independent of his association with Palin, then he satisfies WP:BIO and should have an article. But I agree with the WP:COATRACK essay as a restatement of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT . An ostensible article about Muthee may not be a thinly veiled attack on Palin. Edison (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To help assure that it's not such an article, I've rephrased a couple of things. "Witch hunt" has specific conotations of homicidal violence and is not a good description of praying that evil spirits and influences leave town. Leaving it creates BLP concerns, so it stays out. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a question of mentioning Palin as being an attack her, or at least I hope there isn't. I certainly don't see this as an attack. If you'll note the source - "Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter is about the 2008 presidential election. The context of this information is what I'm referring. Unclear why the reticence to contextualize this. -- Banjeboi 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Hobartimus and GRBerry. COATRACKs seem to prevail far too often. Collect (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee's education

The article should identify the institution which awarded him a master's degree. The sentence which states he has a "master's degree in practical ministry" is footnoted to a reference which says nothing about him having a master's degree. His own website says he has the degree, but does not say what school granted it. It fails verifiability at this point. Google only has four references which mention a "master's degree in practical ministry," for anyone at all (not just Muthee) beside this article. Is it a legitimate academic degree awarded by accredited colleges? Edison (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I'd care about the accreditation issue - let us verify the degree first. Many ministry degrees are given by seminaries which may or may not be accredited - and in Africa there is no particular reason to expect them to be accredited; it just isn't the issue there that it is in the U.S and Europe. And even in the U.S. and Europe it doesn't really matter much for ministers. (And I can see at least one accredited seminary in the U.S. that offers such degrees, the Ashland Theological Seminary.[1] GRBerry 17:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone says he has a degree, without stating the school (which might be able and willing to verify the degree) and without any citation to a reliable source, does that satisfy verification so the claim can remain in the article? Edison (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it as the parenthetical clause within the first sentence being cited to that other source, and the rest of the sentence being cited to the church's website. Why we have written the lead with such a long parenthetical escapes me; that just cries out for copyediting. So does the whole article, but... I think the claim is accurately footnoted. The first sentence of the next section says he did his graduate studies in Scotland, and is cited to a pair of books. The Worldnetdaily article used in our article says the studies in Scotland were interrupted by the return to Kenya - but it could be interrupted after a masters and before a doctorate or it could be before either, impossible to tell. Frankly, I think if we just clean up the parenthetical comment, the sourcing will become clearer, and the material to my eyes generally satisfies WP:SELFPUB, but I'm not certain it passes the relevance part of the test. I've reviewed a bunch of our articles on prominent religious leaders, including both those widely respected (the current Pope, Billy Graham) and those best known for scandals (Bakker, Roberts) and none mentioned a degree in the introduction. Some don't mention degrees at all, some mention them in a subsection about early life or education. This fits with my general knowledge of the religious field; degrees are not of great importance to a minister. They may or may not equip him or her for the work, but they are mostly irrelevant to their current and potential congregants. GRBerry 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It probably belongs in the body of the article under education. It should come out of the lead. Edison (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone please do so. I couldn't think of a not-awkward way of moving it. The cite for the parenthetical is NOT related to the rest of the lead, but there's scant info on the church itself. I wanted to add a section on his beliefs and his church, but I'm tired of editing this one. Have fun! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Other churches

At WAog an editor said that Muthee travelled widely to churches. Does anyone have a list?

I can't find anything that hasn't been scrubbed. There are cached references out there, but I'm having a hard time finding unbroken links. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes for the Next Editor

I'm pretty much tapped out on Thomas Muthee, but there are nagging questions left.

A Google search of "Margaret Muthee" turns up several hits on Kenyan documents, reports, editorials... such as this one... and this one but there's no easy way of telling if that's Thomas' wife. There is a cached list of topics at Wasilla Assembly of God's video/audio archive that shows a memorial video for her (first name spelled "Margret") dated mid-April 2005.

There is also one cached reference to a "Margaret Wamuyu Muthee," appointed Secretariat Project Officer for CRECO in Kenya, and probably the same woman who is a member of IDEA. She posted this in Feb. 2008, so I think she's not the one, though she's a likely author for some of the aforementioned documents. Another mention of her is here, and I'm starting to think she merits her own page...

Yet another Margaret Muthee placed in some kind of women's footrace in early April 2005... unlikely. "Finally, Margaret Muthee, on a recent student-visit celebrated the bongo antelope" in poetry, but since that information is refers to a Dec. 2006 student, I figure we can discount that one.

Add to this that Muthee appears to be a common last name in Kenya, and that Kiambu is also spelled Kiambaa, and that "Word of Faith" churches are not all necessarily related to Muthee.

Anyway, I'm done now. Really. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(I just can't stay away.) I found a couple of transcripts of the video, though I can't find a source that stacks up for reliability guidelines. Still, here are some links: [2][3][4]

He talks about seven areas of society that need "transformation":

• 1. Spiritual - "If all we do is come to the church and get people saved and then they go, I don’t think much will happen in our society."
• 2. Economic - "The Bible says the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today. When we will see that, you know, the talk transport us in the lands. We see, you know, the bankers. We see the people holding the paths. They are believers. We will not have the kind of corruption that we are hearing in our societies." (my emphasis added on one part that is now being heavily disputed in the Blogosphere)
• 3. Politics - "That’s why I was, you know, I was so glad to see Sarah here. We should pray for her, we should back her up. And, you know, come the day of voting, we should be there, not just praying, we should be there... If the believers had not done something in this country, your president would not be in office today." (my emphasis)
• 4. Education - "We need believers who are educationists. [sic] If we had them, today we would not be talking about the Ten Commandments being kicked out of the church, I mean out of our schools. They would still be there. One of the things that you, you know, I would love you to know, I’m a child of revival of the Seventies, and that revival swept through the schools... Christian Union is nothing more but a bunch of kids that are born again, spirit-filled, tongue-talking, devil-casting... We need God taking over our education system! Otherwise, we, if we have God in our schools, we will not have kids being taught, you know, how to worship Buddha, how to worship Mohammed, we will not have in the curriculum witchcraft and sorcery." (my emphasis)
• 5. Media - "If we have a living church right in Hollywood, we would not have all the kind of pornography that we are having."
• 6. Government - "I’ll ask Sarah, would you mind to come please? Would you mind?... Bring finances her way, even in the campaign in the name of Jesus, and above all give her the personnel, give her men and women that will back her up in the name of Jesus... Our Father, use her to turn this nation the other way around. Use her to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers so that the curse that has been there long can be broken... Every form of witchcraft, it will be rebuked in the name of Jesus."

If I can get access to the original video again, or a more reputable source will do a transcript, I'll put it in his article. Otherwise... sigh. It's kinda sad, because I honestly don't care so much about the Palin thing. I'm more interested in him. (Duplicating this on Wasilla Assembly of God talk page.) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LEGIT SOURCE: [5] Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Muthee Quote when Praying over Palin: In or out?

I'd say out, but I'm not going to remove it again until others have had a chance to weigh in. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why anyone thinks we should not include the quote, but I agree with other editors that Palin's reaction, of standing quietly, should have been removed as it was.

• 1) It is from Muthee himself.
• 2) It is the quote that is generating the majority of the media stories.
• 3) It illustrates Muthee's belief in witchcraft has not changed.
• 4) It illustrates Muthee's belief that God will take sides in a political race, a very controversial position.
• 5) It fits well in context in the article.
• 6) It is completely neutral in that it does not interpret Muthee's quotes, and Muthee has not retracted so he still has the opinions expressed in the quote.
• 7) The description of "Palin standing quietly" during the Muthee prayer has been removed to accomodate coatrack objections. If Palin had not been nominated for vp, no one would think of removing the quote. Tautologist (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone else added it in. It is pure COATRACK. As no one posted a reason why they readded it, I would suggest this was a drive-by revert of some sort. The only proper subject of the article is Muthee. Aha -- Tautologist popped in. COATRACK is COATRACK is COATRACK, Taut! Had Palin not been nominated for VP, the entire article would not exist. Collect (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You have completely ignored the COATRACK facts. The parts PERTAINING to Muthee are ok, The COATRACK is not. Thank you for responding on Talk before reverting. Collect (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I added context as it pertains to Muthee. Muthee was the subject of international press coverage prior to the vp nomination, so I kept the Muthee info restricted to Muthee's activities that are pre vp nomination. I was also the editor who deleted the clause "Palin stood quietly" for reason that the clause was not about Muthee, so I considered it to be a coat (coatrack) per the reasoning of Collect. As the article now reads, it is about Muthee's activities and pre vp nomination descriptions of him. But the article should be monitored for addition of additional info that is not about Muthee, such as trying to sneak in the coatrack "Palin stood quietly" clause. Tautologist (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added the Boston Herald article which deals with the entire "controversy." I hope this compromise helps. Collect (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Boston Herald article is about Palin as a vp candidate, and the added edit info is about a POV opinion of the Herald regarding Palin, not Muthee, so has no place in this article about Muthee. Please do not include info about Palin here. As it reads now, an ecyclopedia reader whould have no idea that Palin is vp candidaate, only about info on Muthee, and all of the Muthee info is pre vp nomination. Please do not turn this article into a Palin POV edit war, when her vp campaign is irrelevant to Muthee, a controversial figure unrlated to Palin's vp campaign. Tautologist (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Thread from other talk page on this - )

Muthee quotes, context, Boston Herald User:Collect, as you can see on my talk page, after my youth I became a worker for my Republican county Supervisor when I was treasurer for the area homeowners association. I am trying to keep the articles about people associated with Palin before the vp nomination, free of any vp campaign comentary, and include all notable info from a neutral, fact based, no poinions or commentary by media or editors, viewpoint. This is so that any addition of info can be deleted as coatrack, without the addition editors crying "censorship". Reading your talk page, I do not think our perspectives are very different. I am a collector, too,as I will describe in another section here. Tautologist (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you are a collector. My background in sciences, unfortunately, makes me exceedingly cautious about asserting things about others. I, by the way, consider the Boston Herald to be neutral and fact based. Collect (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My background is in science, too, and I am a very hard nose skeptic, especially of my own writings. I helped run the Statistical Consulting Service at Stanford University for a number of years, which included consulting for every science department on campus. I brutally attacked the lax experimental designs ad publishing standards, where "publish or perish" was more important than objectivity. I am my own most harsh critic. If any factual info about Muthee is left out, others will start an edit war to put it back in, and put it in with a POV for or against Palin, when the article is about Muthee. There is a huge amount of info online over the years regarding Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God, most of it likely accurate, but I find the sources unreliable. Unfortunately, the best way to find a reliable source info on Muthee and WAoG is to use the new reporting by NPR, Christian Science Monitor, Times of London, etc., which is filled with Palin stuff, then filter out any post nomination Palin info. Some of the Palin info pertains to Muthee, not just Palin. That is why I deleted the "Palin stood by quietly" coatrack, as her action is not relevant to Muthee, unless she specifically discusses or cmments on Muthee, e.g., her gubernatorial bid is relevant to Muthee as he took action on his own regarding it. If he does something in the vp race, then it will become relevant to Muthee, but so far, fortunately, there is not. Please take a look at the carefull wording in my last edit there, as I specifically worded it after reading your talk page. The central idea of the edit is not to leave out any Muthee info, so there will be no reason to add any coatrack Palin stuff. I have read the literature on Muthee, and no one will find any Palin stuff to add to the current edit, so it should be easy to argue to revert the article back to its present state if anyone tries to do so. Thnx. Tautologist (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One problem is the cultural nature of prayer. For example, how would you describe the following prayer? "I adjure thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost to depart and remain far away from this servant of God Emily. He commands thee now who walked dry-shod upon the waters, and when Peter would have perished in the sea stretched out to him his saving hand. And so, accursed spirit, give heed to the sentence passed upon thee."? Would such a prayer be relevant to an article? Collect (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the prayer quote would go well in an article on the Inquisition, and on witch hunting, (and even in the Muthee article if it can be sourced that he uses this to justify hiw witch hunting, which he likely does.) I agree with your cultural attitudes comment, as US Salem history creates a culture that is very different, and recent Hutu-Tutsi savagery was in part "justified" with witchcraft allegations, not so often mentioned.

For your information -- the prayer I cited is in the trsditional English Roman Catholic Rite of Baptism. I think my point is made? Collect (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

Yes, it is one of the prayer cited by those persecuting the Salem/Inquisition activities. Before she recently died at age 96, Laura Huxley made me director of the Thomas Henry Huxley and Aldous Huxley Foundation. Aldous wrote a historic book called Devils of Loudun about this stuff, and Ken Russell made it into a superb and horrific film, The Devils.

One thing that did not burn down in my fire was my 1632 edition of "Anatomy of Melancholy", which I had given to someone in LA. It is an early attempt at a science of psychology, and partially attributes "bad moods" and "bad health" to "demons in the blood", which was the basis of bloodletting in historic western "medicine" (scare quotes emphasised here). Tautologist (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The prayer cited was current well into the 1960s in the Roman Catholic liturgy. Collect (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with youyour addition of the Boston Herald info at the end. I was going to include it myself, but I thought it inappropriate since my it might be my own bias, since I agree with the Boston Herald's POV! My concern is that someone who does not agree with the opinion will either delete it, or try to add in a different media opinion, then a back and forth will develop and junk up the article with additional info. If your contrib is deleted, I will restore your edit, but no guarantees if an edit war starts. I am moving this thread over to the Muthee talk page, in hopes that others will leave the Muthee article with your last edit and not try to modify it.

I am moving this thread to the Muthee talk page. Tautologist (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• CONSENSUS REACHED - keep all quotes, context of quotes, and Herald analysis

Huh? Keep your quotes in -- leave the Boston Herald in for G-d's sake! It is explicit, Covers the issue, and debunks it. You are the one COATRACKing Palin in here -- it is only proper that an exact REBUTTAL of your claims also be in here. Collect (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and with your addition of the Boston Herald info. I was goipng to include it myself, but I thuoght it inappropriate since my it might be my own bias, since I agree with the Boston Herald's POV! My concern is that someone who does not agree with the opinion will either delete it, or try to add in a different media opinion, then a back and forth will develop and junk up the article with additional info. If your contrib is deleted, I will restore your edit, but no guarantees if an edit war starts. I am moving this thread over to the Muthee talk page, in hopes that others will leave the Muthee article with your last edit and not try to modify it. Tautologist (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Collect's finishing edit adds good balance and an accurate final context (even if it has a bit of reasonable POV). If anyone wants to add more info, please make sure it is specifically info about Muthee, as actor or subject of action, and not just about palin (like how she stood during Muthee's prayer) or about muthee's numerous other associates. Thnx. Tautologist (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I had to delete a "blog entry" asserting anti-Semitism. If anyone wants to justify using a blog, it won't work. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's tendentious and incomplete to characterize the original source as a "blog entry" full-stop; the source was was a blog entry by journalist Jake Tapper in the ABC News site, which clearly falls under the "Reliable Sources" portion of WP:BLP. Furthermore, the text on the Wiki did not allege anti-semitism but only pointed out that possible anti-semitic language had been reported, linking to the text. Care to explain further the reason for the edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Possible anti-semitic" language is insufficient when reported by other than a fact-based article. If you find a straight news article making that claim, I would be delighted to have it referred to. In the meantime "possible" does not meet the requirements for BLP. Too many folks have made rather outrageous editorial claims, and keeping to the facts, as you will note Tautotologist and I agreed, is the proper course of action. ThanksCollect (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw this quote a while back and I did not include it because a) it is ambiguous as it may be anti-semitic or at best perpetuating a stereotype associating Jews with political power and banking, but more importantly, b) it is not characteristic of Muthee's remarks about Jews from anything I can find.

• 1) With the best interpretation as perpetuating a stereotype, it does indicate a position of promoted by Muthee with Ed Kalnins that is characteristic of their shared teachings, Dominionism, the desire to place Christians in positions of political power for religious, not ethical, reasons, which has nothing to do with attitudes toward Jews. This is why Muthee's prayer over Palin with Kalnins joining is of significance, as it is typical of Muthee's Domionionism. Three additional very characteristic pieces of information are
• 2) the belief in a pastor's faith healing abilities (Muthee believes, with Ed Kalnins, and both promote the belief that Muthee healed his own child with Muthee's special Christian powers, from which the child received leg joints.
• 3) Muthee and Kalnins jointly toured Africa and promoted and distributed books there and at Wasilla Assembly of God. The books are by Rick Joyner, Francis Frangipane and John Bevere.
• 4) Muthee and Ed Kalnins give joint sermons promoting spiritual warfare, which includes physical violence toward witches. In one videotape, you can see Muthee say, "The Bible says that since the days of John The Baptist the Kingdom suffers violence. The violent take it by force. People that have spiritual backbone are the ones that will move forward. I thank God for what I see happening in this place. I thank God for the vision, the passion that I can see here. And my word is this: The more violent you become, the more committed you become, the quicker you will see things happen in this region." In another recent one at Wasilla Assembly of God in 2008, Muthee says something similar, then says, "We come against the spirit of witchcraft! We come against the python spirits!", which is followed by Kalnins taking the microphone from Muthee and adding, "We stomp on the heads of the enemy!"'’.

These four items are characteristic of the joint Muthee/Kalnins sermons, but the comment on Jews is ambiguous and not characteristic of anything else I have found. Tautologist (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct, then, that there is no substantive evidence of pervasive antisemitism which we can reference? Collect (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no substantive evidence of pervasive antisemitism which I can reference, only the Dominionism. There is however a strong anti-Buddhism that can be referenced, with calls for violence. I am still gathering sources. This is not new stuff. Muthee has been well known in the pseudo science debunking and psychic debunking community since at least 1999 (when I first heard of him), and Wasilla Assembly of God since 1996 or so. There is another incident I recall, of a prayer in America for a building in America to burn down as being full of witches and Buddhists, and the building burned down! I specifically did not include the comment on Jews because I did not find it characteristic. But there may be information I do not have. Tautologist (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the blog entry specifically does not make any claim of antisemitism, which makes this moot. I am, however, interested in the anti-Buddhist positions -- which might belong in the primary section on Muthee. Does he distinguish between Buddhist sects at all? AFAICT, Lamaism is vastly different from other forms, but it seems to be the one which is most in the news. Collect (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Info and sources coming. Also anti-transcendental med and anti-islamic, in an extreme use of "anti". That was what Kalnins was talking about when he said Jesus had warlike thoughts, not lamblike. There is also more stuff on other induced mass hysteria witch hunts in Africa which resulted in beatings to death and burning of the withces. (Aldous Huxley's Devil's of Loudun is very informative on the sociological underpinnings of movements like this, as is his Brave New World Revisisted re "herd poisoning".) I am having to track down sources from verbal conversations with academics at the 4th Annual Aldous Huxley Symposium two months ago near Caltech. 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you repeat "COATRACK" enough times and loudly enough, you sound like a Guineafowl and the utterance loses meaningfulness. Muthee said some wierd utterances, about witchcraft, and about his prayer affecting the results of elections, of which the mainstream media have taken notice. Edison (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? We have gotten beyond that to a level of consensus about material in this article. Do you have constructive material to aid in improving the article? Collect (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached above -- do not vandalize

The article references to Wasilla and the Boston Herald article were both used to reach consensus. Removal of the Boston Herald article is vandalism as a result. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not; it would behoove you not to abuse terminology, it undermines your point and makes real vandals look good. the skomorokh 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When a consensus is reached, an anonymous removal of the agreed language is what? I suppose Tendentiousness is one good name. Is this important? Or is maintaining equilibrium important? I trust "unreasonably alter" is fine? Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)