Talk:Mike Breen (pastor)

Untitled

The content and point of view from the Mike Breen page, as written as of 6/22/15, seems to be a little bit too glowing and positive. This is a concern at least insofar as his theories and theses are FAR from uncontroversial. The writer(s)of this page should include objective contraponent points of view to properly balance the article.

Gregkar (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Updates made June 2018. Are these sufficient to remove the reservation above?

--Rn575 (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Rn575

Further updates have been made to reflect the criticism. I think this should be sufficient to consider removal. Would anyone like to take another pass at it?

--Screenmutt (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Screenmutt

• I've removed the criticism section. The sources weren't acceptable and the conclusions were rife with original research. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure an entire removal was warranted. First, there were several other changes that were removed. Second, the blogs linked to are material published by Mike Breen and 3DM directly. Other sections of this article rely on those same blogs. --Screenmutt (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at the other sections--criticism sections are especially sensitive with respect to WP:BLP guidelines, and what you added was seriously flawed. The opening sentence claiming heavy criticism wasn't supported by the source, and what followed drew heavily on WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and sources that are not WP:RELIABLE. Even the ending, "Mike Breen also self-published a series of daily-devotionals with above-market prices," is unacceptable in every way. The entire section comes close to a BLP violation as defamatory. By all means, clean up poorly sourced promotional content. But do it right. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose that's fair. I was attempting to summarize the sources which were linked to. As I'm looking through those requirements, it appears that self-published material is not allowed for on WP:BLP. This article is primarily based on material that was self-published or published by his organization. Should these references and content be removed them? --Screenmutt (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Refs

There's two refs that link to Breen2010, which doesn't work because it should be Breen2010a or b or c; I don't know which. TimBentley (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it, i's Breen2010a TommyCarpenter (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Breen (pastor). 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/20150816152311/http://www.nhlc.org/about/what-we-believe/3dm to http://www.nhlc.org/about/what-we-believe/3dm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306093508/http://leadnet.org/page/ecpn to http://leadnet.org/page/ecpn

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Works

I have removed the section as there is no independent indication of the notability of the publications by the subject. If there is coverage from independent reliable sources that mentions any of them, those could be cited and preferably in paragraph form. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Independent Sources

I've done a pretty exhaustive search and cannot find any independent sources to verify the content on this page. Those sources available are simply repetitions of biographical information in his books. For instance, there is no record of Mike Breen serving as a senior leader of the European Church Planting Network. The website which is referenced for this does not list him. I believe we should consider marking this page for deletion. Screenmutt (talk)

• Screenmutt, two editors, including myself, have begun a process of tagging the article and removing some of the unsourced content. I've also opened a report at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Lastly, I have questions re: the 'criticism' section you added, as addressed above. It might be best if you discontinued involvement in this article. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I was legitimately trying to be helpful. I've tried to make valuable updates and would have edited it as appropriate. I didn't know about the existence of that board or your post. Screenmutt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Imbalance in Article: Promotional Tone Vs Controversy Removal

I've noticed repeated attempts to remove the controversy section, while the rest of the article appears promotional and lacks neutrality. Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and verifiability require a balanced article, yet much of the current content lacks secondary sourcing and seems to serve PR purposes rather than providing an encyclopedic account.

I suggest trimming the article down to a concise, neutral biography that includes only well-sourced information, ensuring that significant controversies remain if they meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for inclusion. Thoughts? Abysslighter (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Concern: Addition of primary/self-published sources

I've removed recently added content based on Mike Breen’s blog series Letters to the Reader, published on disciplingculture.com (a site that also markets his self-published materials). In my opinion, this material should not be reintroduced without prior consensus, due to multiple policy concerns:

Primary source violations: These letters are self-published autobiographical reflections. As primary sources, they require exceptional scrutiny under WP:PRIMARY, particularly in biographical contexts.

WP:BLP concerns: The blog series includes detailed personal disclosures on:

Mental health and therapy

Marital and family issues

An extramarital affair

Workplace conflict (presented solely from Breen’s perspective)

Sourcing this material only to Breen himself raises serious concerns about privacy, reliability, and one-sided framing.

Neutrality and weight: The letters offer a singular viewpoint on serious personal matters, with no third-party analysis or context. Their inclusion risks violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE by giving disproportionate attention to confessional material over Breen’s more widely sourced public ministry and writing.

Lack of independent sourcing: Any significant life events or claims about current activities should be substantiated by independent, reliable sources. Self-published content (particularly of this nature) should not be used to make or support contentious biographical claims.

What was removed: The edit stated that Breen had been "engaged in a personal and spiritual restoration process, supported by a restoration team" and cited the letters as documentation. It also promoted current consulting work, new writing projects, and a renewed focus on "sustainable rhythms and creative focus". All of this was sourced solely to Breen’s own website, and much of the language closely mirrored its promotional tone.

I recommend we maintain the removal unless and until independent secondary sources provide neutral coverage of these developments. Abysslighter (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Update: Just noting that Awkward Saints has published an investigative series (beginning July 2025) on Mike Breen's letters mentioned above, as well as his discipleship framework. The series alleges patterns of coercive and controlling behavior, drawing on survivor accounts from churches that implemented Breen's methods, and includes analysis of the promotional tone in his restoration letters.

The investigation is ongoing and, while extensively referenced, remains a primary source. I'm monitoring for progress and potential secondary coverage that could support future inclusion under WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. Abysslighter (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)