Talk:W. V. Grant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Prime Time Live

I believe W.V. Grant and the Eagle's Nest were exposed on ABC's Prime Time Live along with Larry Lea and Robert Tilton - all in the same episode. I remember this as I lived in Dallas at the time and watched one of his fund raising shows on TV. They had a "20-20 Club" they requested viewer to join. I called in and ask why they don't also start a "Prime Time Live" fund. Starrymessenger (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I added a citation to support that. BBiiis08 (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe there was additional information deleted contested this. Wiki should be balanced. It looks like someone on wiki has a vendetta against this guy and that should not be.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning about conflict of interest

User:Dalford480 has admitted to being employed by W. V. Grant and has edited this article in an attempt to make it show the subject in a more favorable light. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Severe Neutrality Issue

Just to quote the page: "Scientific skeptic James Randi, the author of The Faith Healers, which attacks Rev. Grant and scores of other valid ministers"

and

"Every Tuesday night much of the membership of Eagle's Nest Cathedral go to the streets in Dallas, Texas for several hours, taking 15-18 huge folding tables, hot turkey sandwiches, salad, and vegetables to feed scores of homeless and underprivileged.

Over a dozen times, Rev., and Mrs. Grant, themselves, have been seen taking off their own coats in freezing weather, and giving them to a homeless person."

I think we also need to add a few cite tags in there, but I think first that it really needs the POV cleaned up, then we can get citations. Arenlor (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence and POV

All the information put into the biography for Mr. WV Grant is 100% valid in its nature. It can all be proven with documentation, articles, and actual witnesses. However there are few places that exist on the world wide web that contain this information therefore there is no place to link for references. If Wikipedia wishes for us to mail, e-mail or fax the documentation to back up all of this we will be happy to do so. Not one thing within the biography is just a POV. All the information gathered to provide on Wikipedia was gather from a none bias stand point and Mr. Grant did not contribute a single sentence. I have personally meet the man and he is a man who is honest, and of great integrity. He along with others many years ago were targeted for practices simply because of their success, and a man and his organization should not be held back because of a few skeptics, or nay sayers. The gentleman James Randi is a retired magician, and spends his free time because of 200k grant he got searching out and proving the spirit world does not exists. Now of all people to rain false accusations on someone this guy is not someone i would take any validity to. Anyway if anyone has any questions for me I am available or if there is something you think I should reword or make changes to let me know and i will be happy to discuss and consider your thoughts.

--Dave (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Superedit09

Thanks for coming to the talk page, Superedit09. I appreciate you working on wikipedia, however, it seems that you've taken this article and removed all negative material from it. It addition to removing the Randi quotes, you also eliminated the tax charges. Would you mind expaining why?

In addition, it sounds like you're connected to Grant. You probably read wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest, and how to handle editing a page when you're involved with the subject. A good rule of thumb is to use the talk page for edits, and gain consensus among neutral editors before making major changes. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not understand what is happening

The last post here was from the gentleman dayewalker who stated that I do not have a right to clarify and show proper, relevant information about someone. He also stated that it sounds like I am affiliated with the subject. Well just to clarify our company was contracted by the Grant Ministry to try and bring factual relevant, more favorable documentation to Wikipedia and several other online resources that seems to be only focusing their efforts on some negative mishaps that happened many years ago. I believe that Mr. Grant as well as anyone else who is being written about, commented on, or made public has a right to have some control over what is being said about them. We were hired to make corrections and to create good publicity on a non bias point of view. The only way we would accept Mr. Grants contract was only if we were allowed to create and determine our own facts with out any influence from him. We left some of the tax information about Brenda Grant in the Wiki Biography and did not remove everything that was negative, but we feel as an outside, none influenced intity that whoever originally wrote the information about Grant did not do it without prejudice. The whole biography was a depiction of nothing but negative content and showed no light on anything positive they have done or are doing. These people and their whole organization have done some pretty selfless acts and amazing things for others and it should be made public on Wiki or remove his whole biography all together. I do not mind finding some common ground in which to create a Biography that shows some of his past but would like to see more of the positive things mentioned as I am sure others would also. The 12 hours we spent re writing his biography(using real documented information and facts) was removed less than 8 hours after it was submitted because 2 people had a difference in opinion. I know this is not what the Wiki is about and I expect something to be done about it. I did not so much as get an email or any notification that what we provided was not accurate enough or supported enough to be allowed or something stating that we needed to make a few adjustments. The discussion page stated that it was inline with Wiki guidelines and was acceptable. Then without any warning it is gone. An explanation is in order I believe. If this whole site is designed to show information about subjects and is suppose to present fact and no opinionated subject matter then removing what was submitted is very wrong because it could not be more accurate. If Wiki can not or its editors can not and will not allow us to show all the facts then we request that the entire subject be removed. Legal action is prepared to be taken if this matter can not be resolved. If a website wishes to show information about a subject it needs to show all the informationa dn not just what one or 2 people want to show. The whole article and biography for Mr. Grant was written by someone like James Randi and shows nothing but negative, opinionated information.

--Dave (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The above (in addition to confessing a flagrant conflict of interest and non-neutral point of view), contains a clear-cut legal threat. The editor has therefore been blocked indefinitely under our "no legal threats" policy. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

New bio looks fair and balanced

It is my hope that the latest bio posted of Rev. Grant will stay up on Wiki as it is a fair depiction the facts for both sides. All verifications have been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlgonegood (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone, just today, has posted more accurate info for W. V. Grant. This is a factual and neutral point of view, rather than all that negative opinionated info someone keeps putting up. Best to stick to facts and not "I remember..." "This person or that person said..." I have seen all the info and news over the years and so much is inaccurate. It is amazing what people will say or print to boost ratings or newspaper sales. When one reads info on a neutral site such as Wikipedia, it is expected that all info be just that neutral. This new info is what should be posted in order to show a proper unbias point of view. --Ruth1959 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

I support the factual nature of the revised article and hope that the accurate and provable items will not be removed once again by the motivated detractors of Mr. Grant. I am a neutral party with first-hand knowledge of these facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbv legal (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity

I took it upon myself to research and rewrite the entire bio because of the contention surrounding it. I am a law student on semester break and working on my research and writing skills, that is why the page is footnoted like an academic paper. I am not affiliated with any of the parties to the dispute and did this as semester break work project to keep my academic mindset going (I am also reading "the Nine" by Jeffery Toobin). Further, my professors have said I need to work on my research and writing skills. I am from the area and recall a lot of the news surrounding the topic. I have also edited on Wiki in the past on topics like "Brown v. Board of Education" and other constitutional law issues, as these are areas of interest and limited expertise for me. Those edits though were done anonymously. I didn't think something like a minor edit (the number and names of the other cases bundled with Brown when it went up for review by the Supreme Court in 1952-1955 needed I identify myself or "blow my own horn," but rewriting an entire topic I felt would need my establishing an account. I would be willing to research and rewrite other topics if they are in areas of interest or expertise. I stumbled across this and read the discussion page a few weeks back and thought I might could help out. If my edits are not acceptable, I won't disrupt the forum further. As it is professors are already starting to list in their syllabi that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for academic papers and I am just trying to increase its reliability because as an older college student, I enjoy being able to do Internet research and not having to go to the library and etc. Wikipedia is a good idea in my mind. I encourage others to use it, but to look at the credibility of a piece based on its sources and its proper use of references.

I used to be a journalist and know how to write a "neutral" piece (in spite of the bias of the press these days).

Please advise, if my efforts aren't needed or aren't appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafterJ (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I left you a message on your talk page, I'll repeat it here since we've had a flurry of new editors here. Again, I've reverted your unexplained massive changes in information and tone on the W.V. Grant article. While your efforts to improve Wikipedia are appreciated, you're removing references and negative information on the subject without explanation. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Your comments in the section on James Randi and your speculation about Grant's tax evasion charges is also original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on accounts from reliable secondary sources, not original research or rebuttals of the facts. I again encourage you to bring up your changes on the talk page of the article, and try and show other editors what you're trying to do. Wikipedia runs on gaining consensus, so please try and discuss your proposed additions before making huge changes in the facts and tone of an article. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed nothing that I am aware of (please be specific). In fact I expounded in depth on negative information that wasn't included in the original article. I'll admit my speculation on Grant's conviction is perhaps an opinionated point, but it is the "logical question" in my mind. You say "Your comments in the section on James Randi and your speculation about Grant's tax evasion charges is also original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on accounts from reliable secondary sources" I footnoted everything! If hat is what yo mean by "reliable secondary sources." Randi's methods and Trinity foundations methods and motives are certainly questionable. How do you write anything or "improve an article" without original research?

There were issues with Grant's degrees, so I researched this and documented the results of that research; you had no problem with that.

There were accusations made by someone whose perspective appears to have an ulterior motive (Randi) and whose methods are certainly questionable. I left his comments in, but just presented "food for thought" by those reading the content, and footnoted it. If the article were entitled "The Defamation of W.V. Grant" I would have approached it from that perspective, but it appeared to be a supposed "neutral" bio of a living person, which brings up a question. How is it neutral if you can't debate the reliability of those who are denigrating him, when their methods are so obviously questionable. Where is the neutrality if you can't question the methods or motives of the presenters with "well-documented secondary sources?" I footnoted the questioning of Randi's work. Did you bother to research the information I provided? The footnote is there.

Since you had no problem with what I said about Trinity Foundation, perhaps you aren't being neutral on Randi?

Perhaps this is why academia is beginning to laugh at and prohibit use of Wikipedia in academic efforts. I footnoted everything like it was an academic paper. My philosophy is present the facts, both good and bad and let the reader decide. It would appear Wikipedia wants to be like the mainstream media and only' present points of view they are on board with.

Please advise. Though to be quite honest it appears that Wikipedia isn't a forum I want to write on in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafterJ (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, I've moved your questions into the section above. There's no closed circuit here, any editor is welcome to comment on any discussion. it's part of building a consensus.

I'd suggest you (and the new editors above) read WP:5P to start with, that's the five pillars of Wikipedia, and might help you to understand what Wikipedia is here for. It's an encyclopedia composed of material from reliable sources, and so articles should be constructed as such.

As for your changes to the article, the article must be written from a neutral point of view. You seem to have gone in and disparaged anyone who had issue with the subject. For example, adding "his conclusions have to be viewed with a large amount of skepticism" to the section on Randi is original research, and quite POV. We're not here to apologize for anything the subject has done, nor is WP here to attack his detractors. We're here to report, not give "food for thought" as you put it.

Again, if you have changes to the article you'd like to propose, I'd suggest you bring them to the talk page point by point, so that other editors can comment. Just making massive POV rewrites on the article doesn't help change the consensus. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Closed Circuit" was just a way to try to get your attention (Dayewalker) and wasn't intended to disallow comments by anyone else.

I will freely admit I made some comments like "his conclusions...skepticism." and my use of "Food for thought" in this forum, is in an effort to explain my motives.

you can speak in a neutral tone I understand, and you can also present both sides of an argument to try to balance neutrality. That was what I tried to do. I presented the original material, then countered it to "balance" and hopefully "achieve neutrality."

But it appears you don't want neutral, and merely want to defame Mr. Grant. This conclusion is drawn from the things you seem set on disallowing. Mr. Randi can say any scathing thing about anyone and that "is cool," but question Mr. Randi or his methods, just as you would do in an investigative news report and you use your big editorial eraser, even when it complies to the standard of "reliable secondary source."

Where is the neutrality in that?

RafterJ (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)RafterJ

If you'll please read WP:NPOV, there's a clear difference between a neutral point of view, and a neutral article. Wikipedia reports the facts objectively, as from the reliable secondary sources. Giving the subject of an article free reign to attack the facts or the opposite side of a discussion is not neutral. There's no "argument" to present "both sides of." For example, the subject went to prison for tax evasion. You inserting material saying he may have been innocent is completely NPOV, original research, and unsuitable for an encyclopedia.

I am not defaming anyone. If there's anything in the article you disagree with, or one of the reliable sources you claim has the facts wrong, please bring it to the talk page for discussion. Simply following Wikipedia policy on reliable sources is not defamation, it's actually the way to verify the facts of a situation. Dayewalker (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sooooooo confused. I have a 4.0 GPA and a 141 IQ but I am stupid, stupid, stupid here. How do you present a valid rebuttal to information once it is posted. You say "Giving the subject of an article free reign to attack the facts or the opposite side of a discussion is not neutral. There's no "argument" to present "both sides of." First, I am NOT the subject of the article, otherwise that is so right, but where is the neutrality if the only thing you allow your users to see is biased information? Yes, Mr. Randi's reports in the article are valid from the perspective of he wrote them, and are from "reliable secondary sources." ' It is published information in one or more of his various books. But anybody can publish. I have a novel in print, but it is a work of fiction. It is a book whose theme is on the presence of the devil (as in Satan). That no more makes it a "reliable secondary source" than anything else would be on the presence or none presence of Satan on earth. In my rewrite, I presented "reliable secondary sources" that refute the "reliability" of Mr. Randi's creditability not what he says. He is in the US so can say pretty mucxh what he wants to with impunity, but it doesn't mean it is credible or should be believed.

Is it WP's policy to allow any kind of BS as long as you can point to a 'reliable secondary source?" regardless of whether that source is credible?

And it might not fit the legal definition of defamation when you are quoting sources, which I didn't even intend to imply a legal issue existed. I am merely saying if you only allow the negative and won't allow a reasonable justification or alternative perspective then the tenor or "tone" of the article isn't neutral, it is negative and defamatory.

Based on your policy it would take an article external to Wikipedia that points out both sides to refute what someone says even if it is a crock of hooey. Mr. Randi's methods and reports are clearly questionable. RafterJ (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with Randi, a better place to put the criticism would be on his article. Right now, this page is presented with Randi's criticism, then a statement on Grant's rebuttal. How is that not balanced? Both sides of the argument have their viewpoints represented. The material you added was just an unsourced attack on Randi.

I would again ask you to read the WP:5P and the WP:NPOV sections, to see what Wikipedia is for. Aside from the Randi section, which appears to be well-sourced and provides a rebuttal, what else needs to be changed in the article? Dayewalker (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as another note here, upon reading the link you provided, it seems that whole sections of that page have been lifted and placed on this page as a rebuttal. I don't recall who placed it there, but all editors should understand Wikipedia's rules on copyright violation. Sources should be summarized, not plagarized. Dayewalker (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read both WP:5P (which is basically useless as a style guide) and NPOV.

First let me apologize for violating these editorial policies and writing in exception to them. In mitigation to this seemingly flagrant violation I can only offer that I wasn't aware of their existence and thought from usage experience that WP had virtually no editorial policies and was a wide open forum. Yet, even you (Dayewalker) are violating your own policy. The NPOV states:

"Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. "

Proportinately, hmmm. you say (above) that Grant refutes Randi's assertions so it is "balanced" Randi's part in the detractors section is 195 words in length while Grant's purported refutation is 35 words! NO PROPORTIONALITY and NO BALANCE! Yet every time I try to correct this injustice in the presentation of Mr. Grant's bio you "RVT". I call your attention to the history page if your mind doesn't recall all this overzealous use of the editorial eraser.

Further, the NPOV states:

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, "

I have freely admitted that though my presentation wasn't NPOV in "tone," it was intended to be so in context and content. Just perhaps, and only just perhaps, I failed in accomplishing this overall though I admit I failed when I added comments about Mr. Grant's conviction possibilities had he been allowed to change his plea, but I saw that as the "logical" follow on point. That was purely an "editorial comment" which is never neutral and more an OP:ED style piece than an NPOV style. Should I choose to contribute further to WP, I will guard against tonal issues, such as this, in the future.

" representing fairly, "

How is 190 to 35 words a fairly represented presentation? Yet, your advice thus far seems to indicate even pointing out Mr. Randi's "sensationalism-generating methods" in a neutral tone would meet with your RVT result, based on historical activity.

Moreover, you tell me to post the objections to Mr. Randi's methods on his bio. How is that fair in keeping with WP's policy of fair representation? Few, if any are going to go to Mr. Randi's bio after reading derogatory information about Mr. Grant, unless they were researching "sensationalism" or something of a similar ilk.

"and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.

" They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, " This would appear to imply the proper place for the refutation of Mr. Randi's methods is on Mr. Grant's bio and Mr. Randi's bio, not just on Mr. Randi's bio.

"and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

The policy goes on to state:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. "

Proportionality again! 190 vs 35 words means Mr. Grant's allowed refutation is only 18.4% of Mr. Randi's assertions. That appears rather lopsided to me. But then I am the Nimrod behind the keyboard here and not the God of the editorial eraser, with the power of RVT, so what do I know?

Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV",(emphasis mine)'

It seems your RVT eraser hasn't read this part of the policy.

"although it may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below. Policy shortcut: WP:YESPOV The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view."

I will point out again I didn't approach it this way and again apologize for my transgression. 

Continuing:

"An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. "

Last evening I tried to post just a new intro paragraph based on what you had said about "tone." I presented no new information, and merely summarized what was coming in the body of the bio. Any well-written document starts off with an overview of the topic to be presented. The Lede as you called it in your history remark (I am assuming that is a typo for Lead, or a British variant) removed the references to Mr. Grant's legal problems. You (Dayewalker) had said the tone of the piece wasn't neutral. So I looked at other bios and the commonality of these others is they rarely (I didn't find any) present a negative in the Lede paragraph. Case in point Bill Clinton. His lede is several paragraphs in length but only blows his horn on his Presidency. Later in the article it points out that he had real estate legality issues, sex scandels and was impeached, but it doesn't mention it in the lede. This is a pattern that seems to follow most bios, EXCEPT Mr. Grant's. Any attempts to "change the tone to a positive one" by only listing his accomplishments in a "thumbnail manner" in the same fashion as other WP bios is met with the RVT eraser.

I will freely admit this has become a personal issue for me. You Sir have impugned my integrity and asserted my motives were other than those I have expressed (in essence called me a liar). You have, and rightfully so, criticized my presentation as not being in keeping with WP rules of presentation. I have admitted this is true and sought to educate myself so I could correct this impropriety on my part.

Yet, even still you continue to wield your "editorial eraser," and its RVT function. In my mind's eye I can see your finger hovering above the RVT button. I have fully expected to get a block placed against my user ID as this would seem to follow the strong arm tactics WP's editorial staff appear to embrace.

I have to ask who is being biased and non-neutral now? 

I ask that you recuse yourself from editorial oversight on this bio and advise you that this has become utterly ridiculous and whether you do or not, it is my intent to take this above you in the editorial chain at WP.

You keep saying for me to bring revisions here to get a "consensus from other editors," before posting. I am assuming you are referring to WP editors, yet you are the only editor making any comments or using the RVT function. When do these other editors wade in? With you being the only God of editorial authority it is pure, blatant censorship and nothing more. It begs some pretty ugly questions, but I will refrain from impugning your integrity as you have mine.

As I stated in my original post, I took on this project to stay in an academic mindset during semester break and to work on my writing and researching skills as advised by my professors. Allow me to take this opportunity to thank you for pointing out my lack of dispassionate presentation and for allowing me to also work on my argumentation skills which will aid me once I conclude law school and become a practicing attorney (Barrister in British terms).

Nothing in the foregoing analysis is intended to convey a legal issue, threat, or legal position point and any appearance to the contrary is purely coincidental. 

99.198.25.43 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize I wasn't still logged in on the last post and apologize for posting under an IP only. As much apologizing as I am having to do here, if this was a committed relationship, I would see the writing on the wall and move on to greener pastures. :)

In your post last night you said:

Just as another note here, upon reading the link you provided, it seems that whole sections of that page have been lifted and placed on this page as a rebuttal. I don't recall who placed it there, but all editors should understand Wikipedia's rules on copyright violation. Sources should be summarized, not plagarized. Dayewalker (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to direct your attention to the WP page on Plagiarism. This isn't WP's policy and I will read that, but plagiarism as is defined at that post as "Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. "

If you footnote the source you aren't plagiarizing, because you aren't claiming it as your own original work. Believe me as a current college student and constantly made aware of academic dishonesty issues, I am aware of what constitutes plagiarism. Yet, there are times when the authors own words are better than any summary one might provide and aren't considered plagiarism in academic circles if properly footnoted/endnoted.

I will however become familiar with Wikipedia's rules on copyright violation and follow it.

I noted your Edit Warring Warning on my personal talk page and wonder why that wasn't brought up here? At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theoryist I have to wonder why it wasn't presented here.

RafterJ (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, however, there's a WP principle known as "too long, didn't read." Politely put, it's much better to boil down your arguments to a couple of short statements to make it easier for editors to follow. A wall of text is hard to read, especially for new editors who may want to weigh in. I'll respond briefly.

Your changes to the lead of this article removed the tax evasion charges completely, and wasted half of the lead talking about the subject's father. Grant seems to be most notable for being a minister, a faith healer, and going to prison. His father's history has no place in the lead. As I've suggested before, why don't you bring your edits to the talk page for discussion first? The consensus here is that Grant is notable as above, simply deleting that information without discussion isn't going to change the consensus. As for the edit warring notice on your page, well, that's where warnings are supposed to go.

For the copyvio, a brief quote would be acceptable if noted, but large chunks of text (especially in an unrelated article) would not work.

As is pointed out below, NPOV doesn't mean each side of an argument gets the exact same amount of words. Grant is known as a faith healer, Randi wrote a book about it, Grant responded. All sides are represented. There's no need to count words. Dayewalker (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why I bother because you (Dayewalker) obviously have a personal vendetta against me or Mr. Grant. That is becoming all too apparent.

Why is it "too long,didn't read" for this intro when Bill Clinton's isn't and it is several paragraph's? And why is it inappropriate to remove the tax charges from the opening paragraph to achieve a non-negative, neutral tone to the bio (leaving them in elsewhere because they are factual) in the same manner that Bill Clinton's illegalities, philandering, and impeachment is laid out?

Excluding word counts and similar arguments, where is it fair and balanced to put criticism of Mr. Randi's methods on his bio where no one reading (or at the very least very few) Mr. Grant's bio are going to see them. Remember the context and totality requirements of the NPOV as I pointed out above?

What consensus are you talking about? You are the only one I see having comments here (other than those would be sockpuppets/meat puppets listed above)!

RafterJ (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no such vendetta, and I was not saying the proposed lede to the article was too long, I was referring to your comments above. As for Clinton's article, I'd say Clinton is notable for quite a few things in addition to your charges above. If you disagree, you can discuss it on that page.

You go back to wanting to discredit Randi's comments, or the book he wrote. There is no policy that allows for rebuttals. Grant's comments denying Randi's book are included, why must there be another round of attacks on him? If you think Randi's book and comments should be removed, make your case here. However, your idea of attacking people who've been critical of the subject isn't going to work here. Dayewalker (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No Grant's bio does not attack Randi's book. It merely says "Grant contends that Randi is an agnostic who makes his living off of attacking ministers.[9]" I am not trying to attack Randi. I am merely pointing out that Randi's credibility is questionable as pointed out in a reliable secondary source, but that doesn't seem to be good enough for some reason, in spite of the published standards. Credibility doesn't seem to be a concern to WP. Who'd a thunk it? As a scientist in some respects, I don't have a problem with Randi's conclusions, just the methods he uses to derive them.

Yes, President Clinton did a lot of good things during his presidency, but his entire second term, four of the eight years he was President, was mired in controversy because of his philandering and other illegalities, yet there isn't a single word in his lead paragraph regarding these points. When the history books are written, I am sure it will get plenty of print space. Paula Jones (who isn't even mentioned in his bio on WP), travelgate, Whitewater, and Monica Lewinsky. But no mention of this in the lead paragraph. Yet you insist that Mr. Grant's lead paragraph include his conviction and prison term, which got extensive coverage in my rewrite. My guess is if I tried to edit Clinton's page (as you suggested) to include these glaring discrepancies, that would be met with resistance, as well. I'm 57 years old and I have lived through a lot of Presidencies and his was one of the worst from a controversy stand point. That doesn't seem to bother WP though. You purport to be an encyclopedia, so one of your contemporaries is Brittanica. I'll guarantee Britannic wouldn't go to press with these glaring insufficiencies. Yet WP doesn't seem to mind. Hmmm?

The opening paragraph for Mr. Grant sets a negative tone to the bio and is blatantly unfair to him. Prez Clinton's isn't the only bio on WP without negative points in the lead paragraph, yet have nefarious details in their histories. In fact the only one I can find, save for notorious and nefarious individuals who have nothing else in the bio and are noted for their notoriety is Mr. Grant's bio.

Where is the fair and neutral posturing in that? Look hard but you won't find it. I've already looked.

My guess is you would be opposed to merely adding something brief like "Mr. Randi's methods are in question in some circles[citation]." That would begin to approach fair and balanced, but that doesn't appear to be what WP is about.

RafterJ (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Clinton discussion seems to be a straw man argument, dealing with someone far more notable on numerous levels. I'm going to stay on topic here.

Randi's credibility is attacked in one source you've provided, in an attempt to minimize his comments. Why would that source be listed here, when numerous other sources have supported Randi and his lifetime of profession skepticism and debunking? Grant's rebuttal to Randi's claims (and they are clearly marked as such) seems to be fine for providing both sides of the debate, there's no need or cause to bring in an outside source to attack someone who is critical of the subject. Dayewalker (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it you dance around the issues when a valid cogent argument is presented. you said " The Clinton discussion seems to be a straw man argument, dealing with someone far more notable on numerous levels. I'm going to stay on topic here." A straw man argument. I'm not sure I know what you mean by that, but I think it is a lot like the sockpuppet argument.

I use the Clinton argument to present what is seemingly acceptable and valid for a post here on WP. you insist the negative tone and non-neutrality of the Grant bio remain as is, but won't insist it be that way otherwise. Case in point Clinton and hundreds of others on WP. This appears to be a non-neutral and intentionally negative attack on Grant. This after castigating me about my non-neutral tone and my perceived lack of neutrality on the subject. I admit I was ignorant of WP standards and have proposed edits and rewrites to correct tone and content. Yet you remain unmoved and adamantly opposed to changing anything on Grant's bio (even when I do as you say and submit them here).

you say submit here and allow other editors to give their feedback, yet you and I are the only ones talking, and since you have the power of the RVT function and the "editors eraser" it is a battle I can't win. This has become personal to me because of attacks on my person and the impugning of my integrity. I again respectfully request you recuse yourself from your oversight of this bio and request methods for contacting your superiors be provided.

The changes I propose are in keeping with the standards that WP has published. To disallow them is NOT neutrality, it is blatant non-neutrality. your interests seem to go beyond the scope of administrator/editor or whatever your title is in this regard.

RafterJ (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like other opinions on my editing here, probably the best thing to do would be to take this to the administrators noticeboard. I was considering doing so or filing a request for comment, but if you feel I'm doing something wrong here, I encourage you to file an ANI report. Dayewalker (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What is an ANI report, what is its purpose, and how do you file one?

RafterJ (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI = WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, I strongly advise that you do not file an ANI report now because it would not work in your favor. You should start by studying WP:DR to learn about how dispute resolution works here. I say "studying" because if you were thinking of pursuing the issue you would want to really read the relevant pages and think about what they are saying. I advise against ANI because that is only appropriate when a serious problem requires immediate action. You may find the procedures here to be frustrating, but I assure you that Dayewalker is a very experienced editor and has behaved very well in connection with this article. I have no previous knowledge of Dayewalker; my assessment comes from scanning this page and the history of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm popping in to make a couple of points. First, RafterJ commented to Dayewalker "I am assuming you are referring to WP editors, yet you are the only editor making any comments or using the RVT function. When do these other editors wade in?" Most WP pages only have a small number of editors watching them at any time unless issues attract the attention of others. But I've been monitoring this page and Dayewalker is doing an excellent and patient job of dealing with issues on this page.

Second, a number of special-purpose accounts have logged in, made only one contribution to WP - supporting particular revisions to the article - and then gone. This looks likely to be either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and could lead to a report at WP:ANI and to accounts being blocked. I'm not going down that road at this point, but just drawing involved editors' attention to the possible problem.

Third, balance is not about word counts or equal airing of views, but about accurately reflecting facts, arguments and perspectives from reliable sources. If there are reliable sources that dispute or refute Randi's claims, for example, they could be used to provide an alternative view in the relevant section. Given the nature of Randi's argument, counter-claims by Grant himself in his own publications would not be reliable. In this context it would need to be from independent third-party publications that meet reliability standards. hamiltonstone (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry...interesting. I have no control over who responds to the posts on this forum. In fact I find it remarkable that anyone could reflect on what I wrote considering how briefly my post stays up. I take offense to your allegations!

As to balance, I posted the link that the balance I have tried to present comes from. Here it is again http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm. In spite of this seemingly comporting to WP standards and requirements, the RVT function still wins out. It is RVT 3 RafterJ 0 at this point. I used to be an on air radio personality so I know the power of the producer well.

Moreover, I see that now I am threatened with being blocked. <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/strong+arm+tactics">Strong arm tactics</a> appear to be the editorial style at WP.

It is becoming apparent to me that WP isn't interested in "fair and balanced" or neutrality and that Mr. Grant or any one similarly situated can't get a fair shake on this forum. That positions this forum on an equal footing with tabloid newspapers for living individuals. That may well threaten the non-profit status of WP

The foregoing is neither a threat nor legal advice, and is merely an unlearned observation. 

In the past in classroom settings when WP has been impugned by professors, I have taken it upon myself to protest and state "that WP at the very least is a good place in which to gain secondary sources, and from which a student can begin their research" but no more. WP editors have shown that WP is NOT a neutral source in spite of their assertions to the contrary. RafterJ (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to see editors pointing out the obvious as threats and personal attacks, which is n it accurate. This page has had a string of single-purpose accounts over the last year who have come here, removed negative information or commented in favor of such, and then disappeared.

You're not threatened with being blocked, as long as you edit by the same rules as all other Wikipedia editors. If you edit war, an admin will block you. It's not a threat, it's how the rules work.

Again, I'll advise you to suggest changes to this article here on the talk page so other editors can comment. Dayewalker (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to change lede

Ok, in keeping with your suggestion, I propose the lede paragraph be changed to remove the negative non-neutral tone of the existing one. This is in keeping with others on here as I noted in my reference to Bill Clinton above. I propose the following be substituted for what currently exists:

Walter Vinson Grant Jr. (known as W.V. Grant) is a pastor, missionary, evangelist and televangelist born in May 1945 to Reverend W.V. Grant, Sr., and Lorene Grant. His father, a noted evangelist, revivalist and tent revivalist, in his own right, moved in circles that included such notables in the field of evangelism as A. A. Allen, Morris Cerullo, Jack Coe, Velmer Gardner, Alton Hayes, David Nunn, A. C. Valdez, and many others. Rev. Grant Jr. would follow in his father’s footsteps and take over his ministry. He would become an evangelist and pastor, basing his ministry in Dallas, Texas where his father had established the "Soul’s Harbor" ministry, He would become the pastor of Soul's Harbor church upon his father's retirement and would establish his own church in 1974 as the "Eagle's Nest Family Church." It is currently listed as the "Eagle's Nest Cathedral" with estimated revenues of $320,000 annually and employs an estimated 14, according to data from Dunn & Bradstreet as listed on Manta.com.[1]

Here is the foot note reference I use in the revised paraghraph:

1. “Eagles Nest Cathedral - Dallas, Texas (TX) | Company Profile” hosted at Manta.com http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_dx7spx Accessed 12/20/2009.

How long does it take to get approval or disapproval for this change?

RafterJ (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, as above. Grant seems to also be notable for being a faith healer, and going to prison. The information on his father isn't suitable for the lead, and a list of other evangelists of a previous generation isn't relevant. Let's see what other editors have to say. Dayewalker (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead proposed by RafterJ is not suitable because it focuses on the subject's father and because it omits the most notable parts of the subject's life. The comparison with Bill Clinton is not accurate: Grant served a prison sentence; Clinton tried to deny affairs. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As already stated, the lead revision is unsuitable. The lead is meant to be a summary of the main points in the body of an article, and the main points in the body of the article should be the most notable information about the subject available from reliable sources. In this case that means not focussing on the father, and covering the legal and other issues about the individual. The current lead, while short, does do these things while your proposed version does not. Your source for the business info is okay, but really would be best sourced directly to the Dunn and Bradstreet source, not to a tertiary website that is citing D&B. The information it is used to cite, however, appears tangential to the subject of the article. It might warrant a sentence, placed after "Grant was released from prison on September 18, 1997 and has since restarted his ministry, again under the name Eagles Nest Cathedral, in the eastern part of Dallas on Interstate 30." It might read something like "As of 2010, Eagles Nest Cathedral, also trading as W V Grant International Ministries, is still headed by Grant and has a staff of 14". hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed text

These two edits removed the following as not supported by the reference:

Members of the Trinity Foundation investigating team later admitted to a personal vendetta. Additionally, court documents examined deceptive journalistic techniques utilized by ABC News, exposing key elements of the televised report as "bogus."

The removed text is certainly over the top and not fully supported by the reference, but the reference ("The Cult of Ole". Dallas Observer. whole article) includes:

Several former members say the investigation of Tilton was not only a personal vendetta but an attempt to get Anthony a national forum. One of the key members involved in the Tilton investigation now says he is ashamed of it and believes that much of it was not true.

Tilton lost a libel suit against Anthony, Trinity and ABC; it's difficult for a public figure to win such a case. Though back on the air, he hasn't managed to rebuild his reputation or ministry to its former heights.

But an examination of thousands of pages of court documents in lawsuits triggered by the ABC exposé shows numerous misrepresentations by Anthony and his cohorts at ABC, who employed deceptive journalistic techniques that ended up embarrassing Diane Sawyer. Tilton's lawyers proved that the prayer requests discovered by Trinity could not have been found as claimed: Thus, the most memorable part of the Primetime Live story was bogus.

My reading of the "The Cult of Ole" article is that everyone involved has a problem, although the problems of the subject of this article are much more severe than those of his accusers. I am mentioning all this here to show some neutrality in the issue, however, I support the removal of the text because it is not relevant to the article. The article makes no use of the claims by Ole Anthony or the Trinity Foundation (apart from the unchallenged discovery of a photo), so there is no need to discuss faults in their techniques. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove Editor who is controlling this article

I sent the following email to the complaint board on this subject. I really believe the person [Daywalker] or who ever else is deleting the updates is involved in a non bias way and would like them removed from this post permanently.

"We have made several attempt to make correcting to an article on Wiki about the subject Biography WV Grant. The very first 2 sentences convects negative legal issues and we believe based on all other biography's that this should be made available in legal issues category within the biography or somewhere else and not int he very 1st sentence. Reverend Gant is noted for so much more than this one sentence. In fact almost the entire article is bashing him for a tax evasion. We have tried updating the article with a complete and professionally formatted biography of WV Grant and one editor in general deletes it 5 minutes after its up and can not provide any real reason why except POV which it is not it is 100% facts about this person. It has not only been updated by US but by several others and it gets deleted every time. If we look at other evangelists who have had a run in with the law all or the comments in regards to that subject are referenced to later in the biography under detractors or Legal Issue, not one, Robert Titlon, Benny Hinn, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, again not one mentions anything negative in the 1st sentence. We feel that the person who is controlling the information on this article should be removed from being allowed to approve or disapprove it and someone else should be granted access to monitor this subject. We are confident he is involved with the detractor or is one of the detractors. He is not being neutral on the subject and we demand some action.If you review the discussion page 30 people agree and no one sides with him or backs his reasoning up, but he has the control. Please help, Please advise." --WPiswrong (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, I welcome any scrutiny into my edits on this page (or anywhere else), and I'm sure the other editors above will agree. There is a discussion going on this page about the article, which for the last year has seen a number of single-purpose accounts come through and whitewash the page, then disappear. I encourage any editor who is interested in this article to participate in the talk page discussions, and try and understand the consensus.

WPiswrong, are you connected to Superedit09/Dave acount above? I ask because you've corrected his spellings and edited his comments, if you are not that editor, please don't change anything they've written. Dayewalker (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I will note that this is not the first single-purpose account involved with this article who writes in the first-person plural (i.e., about how "we" feel) to complain about the article's purported bias. If these are role accounts, they could all be blocked on that basis; but perhaps it is merely a similar outlook. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I prepared a list of them here [1] in anticipation of filing a report, however, since almost all of them are only active for one session, I'm not sure what good it will do. I'm hanging on to the summary for now in case an admin would like a summary of the SPAs. Dayewalker (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker is doing very good work keeping this article compliant with Wikipedia's policies. If Dayewalker were not here, someone else would do the same, although possibly not as well. The lead of an article should present a reasonable summary of the article, and that is what happens in this case. When you say "We feel that...", who is "we"? Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with comments and Qs by Dayewalker and Johnuniq. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple Solution To Problem

I have requested protection for this page until the dispute is resolved. I am going to attempt getting a BLP expert out to help with this too. This has gone way too far. Arenlor (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)