Talk:Donald Lee Stewart

Metropolitan90's edits

I corrected language from Metropolitan90 that was not NPOV. According to TV guide Stewart appears on local stations in large metro areas to numerous to mention, I put in, "and other television channels." Is there something special about the "Word Channel?" (Although Stewart would probably like his viewers to know he appears on that channel). Metro has listed no independent reference to how the subject raises money or why this should be relevant. You could criticize almost any church or ministry for fund raising and lifestyle, (i.e. Billy & Franklin Graham, any one of many U.S. Cardinals & the Boston Archdiocese, etc). This kind of criticism does not fall under Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. The external links critical of the subject, at the bottom of the page were left in place and are the proper place for Metropolitan90 and others to place there critical POV of the subject. JScardilli (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)This user now edits as Harvest09 (talk · contribs)

You are wrong. I suggest you read WP:NPOV. The only requirement for criticism is WP:RS. Many criticisms of people's finances are on wikipedia. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

POV/Religiously biased

The previous articles on this page are extremely religiously biased in their depiction of Don Stewart and could be liable. There seems to be an effort by some on the internet to criticize ridicule, and demean ministers of the Pentecostal culture that needs to be closely watched. I have removed offending lines and offensive title, "Greedy Preacher." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JScardilli (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC) This user now edits as Harvest09 (talk · contribs)

Be advised that mention of legal ramifications will get you blocked. If you have a problem, discuss on this talk the specific issue and its source. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more of wikedpedia's yellow journalism. That's why they'll never get a dime from me. Gossip and libel in an "encyclopedia." Yeah, that's what an encyclopedia is. Doesn't everyone know that?

Classless. 76.6.64.147 (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

POV/Marketing

This page has a strong POV. It needs to be heavily revised because right now it sounds like marketing material. For now, I've removed the offending lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.86.26.15 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Better Business Bureau reported, the Don Stewart Association "did not provide requested information. As a result, the Better Business Bureau cannot determine if it meets standards."

Should this be included? Tgreach (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding it since this was mentioned in USA Today in 1993 and appears to be a recurring theme in all the press coverage I could find. Tgreach (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Something like the BBB would be considered a primary source and I'd also not be too certain about its reliability; once some secondary source like USA Today reports on it it can be included. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Article from USA Today isn't cited, there is no link to it to check WP-V. Better Business Bureau doesn’t endorse its members anyway so it seems to be included only as a negative comment violating Wikipedia NPOV. Harvest09 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

An article doesn't have to have a link. In fact, newspapers existed prior to the internet and so not all articles ever published will be online. For WP:V go look at LexisNexis or microfilm. BBiiis08 (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading the cited articles on this page and many of them are misquoted, don't link to the sight listed, or only give one point of view from the article. I don't think anyone really cares that much about this page, but it is a good one to practice on. Really where is the NPOV.Harvest09 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, as pointed out above and below, you don't understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I haven't seen any misquotes. Below you seem to have taken issue that Roberts and Humbard weren't included (why that matters I don't understand), but I added their names as you wanted. BBiiis08 (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Don Stewart Green Prayer Cloth

An editor has said the prayer cloth was a direct mail piece written by someone other than Stewart. The article he referenced doesn’t say that. More importantly, The Green Prayer cloth isn’t a direct mail piece anyway. It is a give away on his television program and website. What it is and why he does it, is written on his web page and a posted video there from his TV program. It is also referenced in a book he wrote for an independent publisher. This seems like the most NPOV. Harvest09 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Where/who said "the prayer cloth was a direct mail piece written by someone other than Stewart"? BBiiis08 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Developing a consensus for the article and correcting mistakes

The article as it is currently written describes and defines Stewart primarily by his critics. I don’t believe that mostly using the critics of Stewart to describe him is why people look up a person in an encyclopedia. I believe this violates Wikipedia’s NPOV as I read it. As an encyclopedia article I think we should include an accurate description of who Stewart says he is and was, what Stewart did and says he is doing, and why he says he did it and does it, before you criticize him? I would like to see an article that includes Stewart’s place in our cultural and history. Criticism of Stewart is fine and part of how he is viewed culturally if it is accurate and not the main emphases of the article. I would like to look at this article one paragraph at a time.

Paragraph 3. in the Biography section begins with, “G. Richard Fisher has been critical of Stewart's teachings and purported healings.[3] The Trinity Foundation and Inside Edition investigated Stewart's wealth and as he solicited funds from supporters.”

NPOV: I don’t see the relevance of the statement “G. Richard Fisher has been critical of Stewart's teachings and purported healings” This person seems to appeal to a very limited crowd He has no best selling book, he is not on TV, he is not a sought after speaker (I can’t find any press releases of him speaking to large groups or churches), he has no Wikipedia page. Joe the plumber is critical of Barack Obama, so what? The statement seems to be included only for the purpose of creating a negative about Stewart. I don’t see the relevance of the statement that, “The Trinity Foundation and Inside Edition investigated Stewart's wealth and as he solicited funds from supporters.”

WP-V:This statement isn’t referenced. There is no link to a legitimate news organization manuscript of any Inside Edition program on Stewart and the Trinity Foundation to check WP-V. “What Wikipedia is not.” However, this article’s criticism is built primarily from the Trinity Foundation’s critical web site. Much of the article as it currently stands is lifted word for word from that site, making it basically a second web page for the Trinity Foundation. The Trinity Foundation also puts itself in as many Wikipedia articles as it can, in an apparent attempt to create links that help boost its web page’s rank on Google. When Wikipedia defines itself, “What Wikipedia is not.” The use of the Trinity Foundation in this manner is a violation of this policy.

NPOV: The Trinity foundation only criticizes Pentecostal Ministries and is not NPOV. There is no criticism or even on going investigations on the Trinity Web page of non-Pentecostal ministries such as Catholic Priests who molested young parishioners, and the money spent to defend and settle these cases by the Archdioceses they ministered in, or Billy & Franklin Graham’s, Jerry & Jonathan Falwell’s, etc. use of direct mail, large salaries to family members, ownership and use of private jets, large homes around the world, etc. Saying the Trinity Foundation or Fisher is critical of Stewart, is like saying, “The Ayatollah Humani is critical of Golda Meir.” So what? (Fisher’s ref in this article is linked to the Trinity Foundation).

I suggest you read what WP:NPOV is. Fisher's opinion and work as a editor seems fine. I suggest, however, that you not compare a living person to the Ayatollah. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a correction of Paragraph 3. in the “Biography,” section that is inaccurate. It says, “Stewart's fundraising letters were written by Gene Ewing, who heads multi million dollar marketing empire, writing donation letters for other evangelicals like WV Grant.[4] Included in these letters was a Stewart's green "prayer cloth" with claims that it has supernatural power.”[4]

This is a good example of what you are doing. I don't know what your problem is, but on the link YOU provided below says about the cloth: "miracles of healing, prosperity and spiritual miracles' from people who have used the Green Prosperity..." Are you saying miracles are not supernatural? BBiiis08 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP-V: The article from the Dallas Morning News that is sourced for this statement doesn’t say that. It doesn’t say anything about Ewing and a green prayer cloth. It doesn’t say Ewing writes all of Stewart’s fundraising letters. I can’t find this information in the article? This statement is only made by the Trinity web site.

No, the relevant claims are in the article, I suggest you read it. (Wikipedia/Dallas is not claiming "all" of Stewart'smoney requests are from Ewing--read carefully.) You keep setting up strawmen, please stop.BBiiis08 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP-V: More importantly Stewart’s Green Prayer Cloth is not a direct mail piece, but it is a give away on Stewart’s Web-site and TV program. This fact is sourced on his web site and there are additional links at his web-site that show him doing this on his TV program where this pitch also takes place.

No, it's in the article. I suggest you read it. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP-V – NPOV: There is a random name included in this article, “WV Grant.” Why is this here? I think this could be considered an attempt to smear Stewart, because Grant went to jail. This isn’t NPOV. There is no known connection between Stewart and Grant, they don’t appear on each others TV programs, and they don’t preach with or for each other, there is no known contact between the two. This is just a direct quote from the Trinity web site.

No, Grant's name is mentioned in the article on who else is involved with that business. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP-V: In the final sentence of the paragraph there is a statement, “…with claims that it has supernatural power.” I can’t find a quote by Stewart anywhere in his writings, web site, or TV program where he makes this claim. This again is a direct quote from the Trinity & Fisher web site.

Again, see above or your own citation below. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV: I think Stewart’s Green Prayer cloth is becoming well known and when people look him up in an encyclopedia they would want to know why he is doing this. Therefore, I would like a paragraph that says the following. This paragraph would be referenced by his exact statements from his web site and a book he wrote that was independently published by a large Christian Publishing company, (Destiny Image). I think this stands on its own because people who think what he is doing is goofy, would still think it is goofy and people who think what he does is okay, would not find this offensive. It just gives us an insight into why he does this.

What I believe would be the best way to describe the Green Prayer cloth in the article would be the following:

Stewart offers green prayer handkerchiefs on his television program and website. His justification for the distribution of the cloth is based on the story his mother told him about how she lay dying in a hospital waiting to give birth to him. A man came through the hospital and prayed for her leaving her with a prayer cloth. She recovered and gave birth to him. Stewart finds biblical justification for this from the passage in Acts 19:11 – 12. Harvest09 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist and have been observing the attempted excision of negative material by Harvest09. Having only skimmed the above section, I can't address every point, but as far as the allegations re Gene Ewing's participation in writing Don Stewart's letters, I can offer at least a second-hand quote from the article which Harvest09 claims doesn't mention it. In Finances, Fraud and False Teachings: The Troubled History of Don Stewart, the Dallas Morning News piece is quoted as saying "The News obtained copies of direct mail solicitations, all of which contained virtually identical language, but which are 'signed' by different evangelists including Robert Tilton, Rex Humbard, Frederick Eikerenkoetter (better known as 'Rev. Ike'), Don Stewart and W.V. Grant Jr. Based on the dates that they were received, the letters apparently first appeared under Mr. Ewing's signature". This also explains the connection between W. V. Grant and Stewart questioned by Harvest09. NPOV doesn't mean that negative material shouldn't be included, and in this particular case it would unreasonable not to have a fair amount of it since the subject has inspired many critical articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly, it just says Stewart hired Ewing's direct mail firm to do a letter. It doesn’t say Ewing writes all of Stewart’s letters and since everyone who has a computer or TV knows Stewart’s prayer cloth is a give away and not a direct mail piece what is the point? The statement in this Wikipedia article isn’t accurate and isn’t supported by the Dallas News article as you quote it.

Because WV Grant hired Ewing too, there is a link? Why not say Rex Humbard or Oral Roberts they are mentioned? Why is it important to drop a random name here anyway? Harvest09 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Harvest09, The article doesn't claim "all" the letters were written by Ewing. To address your concerns, I added Humbard and Roberts to that sentence as well. I think you should review WP:NPOV. Some of your concerns can be set aside with you reviewing that policy. Fisher's criticisms, in the context of multiple news reports and criticism, are relevant. Indeed the section should have more detail, but to say Fisher's article isn't a RS for Fisher's opinion or that Inside Edition aired a critical report is a stretch. Your misguided attacks on the critics here won't cut it.

As for the green cloth, more information should be added if you can find secondary published sources. BBiiis08 (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I added some of the material from the AA Allen article since there was little information on this page about Stewart's activity prior to 1990. BBiiis08 (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment for editors: Harvest09 is a WP:SPA. That editor has not edited any other article and is only interested in removing criticism from this page. BBiiis08 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1)Where does it say in the Dallas article that the Green Prayer cloth is a direct mail piece by Ewing? Again Stewart's Green Prayer cloth is a promotional give away on his web site and TV program. How can this be disputed? That is a fact that is currently available at his web site and his reason for doing it is also documented in his 1999 book independently published by a large Christian publishing company Destiny Image. All this is presented above in my idea on how the paragraph might read.

Are you really looking at the sources? If so, you are not telling the truth. The Dallas Morning News (1996) clearly mentions the prayer cloth and tells the story that "His mother, according to the minister, put the prayer cloth in his..." He has been sending out the cloth for years and telling that story prior to 1996. It's clear. It's in the article. The wikipedia article does not claim it is "a direct mail piece by Ewing" it says the cloth and other items get sent out with the direct mailing letters. (The theory behind it is also in the 1996 article.) Again, you seem to not fully understand the claims in the wikipedia article and/or its source.BBiiis08 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

2)Just my opinion, but I don't see how Fisher's criticism is RS or NPOV. To make it NPOV you would have to allow for some answer to his criticism and then you would be digressing from an article about Stewart and making it about Fisher. Why doesn't someone do a Wikipedia page about Fisher and put his stuff there?

Maybe I will make an article about Fisher, you could do it too. Again, please read WP:NPOV-- you don't seem to understand it. Even critics, like the Trinity Foundation get allowed to have an opinion. Also it should be noted it is one sentence. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

3)Before we add more material could we just look at the article as it stands one paragraph at a time?

No, please don't tell anyone what to do. You have not raised any serious objections. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

4)Why is it important to the Stewart article who Ewing's clients are? This article isn't about Ewing.

It's informative, about his ministry process, it matches other patterns of reports on his donations, and its from a RS. Furthermore, there aren't many RS so the more the better. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

5)Why is the Inside Edition even mentioned?

National TV coverage is relevant to a biography. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment for editors This is my first article I would appreciate all the help you can give. I don't mind criticism here I am just interested in accuracy and that both sides of the criticism be presented, (NPOV).Harvest09 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV and use that misunderstanding to get material removed. While you say you "don't mind criticism" (you don't own the article, btw), in #4 you want RS of his mailing process removed. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment for administrators: I find the last insertion of a paragraph by User:BBiiis08 to be offensive, It reads ("After AA Allen died Stewart gained possession of the Miracle Valley property.[3] On the property from 1979 until 1982, nearly 300 members of a group isolated themselves with Frances Thomas professing what locals said was an "anti-white doctrine."[4] Rioting on the property from some immigrants Chicago and part of Mississippi took place in this era and culminated in the death of Therial Davis, a six year old.[5] The group then had confrontations with utility workers, neighbors and eventually law enforcement resulting in an October shoot out leaving, two members of the church were killed, and a deputy.[4] Subsequently, legal problems occurred when in 1982, A. A. Allen's main administration building and his vast warehouse were set fire by an arsonist(s), which resulted in the total destruction of the facilities.[6][7] Don Stewart planned to use the money to "rebuild" his ministry, requesting donations from church-goers and sending out multiple letters to some of the people on his 100,000 person mailing list.[8] According to the press, one his letters "gave the impression the center was destroyed and the fire had crippled Stewart's ministry.".[8] A third letter sent by Stewart's ministry purported to include ashes of the destruction and asked for donations of $200.[8] According to the article, the church had "questioned Stewart's fundraising techniques" before.[]")

I think it may fall under the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. While it is true Allen and Stewart were early leaders in the civil rights movement, (and that is a subject we can discuss at a later date), It isn't helpful for editors to add controversial material while we are debating the article as it stands to date. Thanks,Harvest09 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What's incorrect about it or controversial? The quotes are sourced to a newspaper, which is readable via google's archive ("Prescott native hopes ashes will help rebuild his ministry", The Daily Courier, November 5, 1982). Do you doubt that article? Also, The Daily Courier is Stewart's hometown newspaper. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not given a substantive reason for excluding factual information regarding millions of dollars of Stewart's property. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked for the removal of an edit by BBiiis08, because it described very serious events of murder, riots, racial church burning, implied mail fraud, etc. in a way that didn't make it clear who was involved, when, how, and why. I think most people would agree that when these kind of things are written about and implied they have something to do with a living person they should be carefully worded and thoroughly discussed, if they are used at all. Harvest09 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment for administrators: I still find the last insertion of a paragraph by User:BBiiis08 to be offensive, It reads ("After AA Allen died Stewart gained possession of the Miracle Valley property.[3] On the property from 1979 until 1982, nearly 300 members of a group isolated themselves with Frances Thomas professing what locals said was an "anti-white doctrine."[4] Rioting on the property from some immigrants Chicago and part of Mississippi took place in this era and culminated in the death of Therial Davis, a six year old.[5] The group then had confrontations with utility workers, neighbors and eventually law enforcement resulting in an October shoot out leaving, two members of the church were killed, and a deputy.[4] Subsequently, legal problems occurred when in 1982, A. A. Allen's main administration building and his vast warehouse were set fire by an arsonist(s), which resulted in the total destruction of the facilities.[6][7] Don Stewart planned to use the money to "rebuild" his ministry, requesting donations from church-goers and sending out multiple letters to some of the people on his 100,000 person mailing list.[8] According to the press, one his letters "gave the impression the center was destroyed and the fire had crippled Stewart's ministry.".[8] A third letter sent by Stewart's ministry purported to include ashes of the destruction and asked for donations of $200.[8] According to the article, the church had "questioned Stewart's fundraising techniques" before.[]")

I think it may fall under the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

Aside from the poorly worded edit, the only source cited that had anything to do with Stewart was provided by a service using an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned. Harvest09 (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't say anything you requoted material. I don't see how any of this controversial! These are facts about widely reported riots on this property and the arson. If you notice there is still news discussion on the events 20 years later. Do you deny this happened?

Moreover, google news archives is not an "old photopcopy." In fact, the article is reported in Stewart's home town paper. The Daily Courier is a WP:RS for factual information.

BLP does not mean excluding material from RS that an individual thinks is controversial. If that is your understanding then you are wrong. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Another WP:RS. In James Randi's The Faith Healers on page 88, in the chapter about AA Allen:

"Don Stewart, a former Bible student from Clarkdale, Arizona, began running the operation. Stewart eventually established his own following in Phoenix, and is currently accused of arson and embezzlement by his church."

That adds a new dimension to this as well. You can search inside the book at http://www.amazon.com for the quote.BBiiis08 (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

<Unindent>NOTE: This section was formatted for readability. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes?

There are 271 press stories from 1981-83 in google archives all backing this up. Articles in that link include "Black Church Vs. White Pentecostals", Los Angeles Times, Oct 1, 1981; "2 Die, 9 Hurt In Police, Sect Shootout," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; "Miracle Valley church members arrested as feelings run high," Kingman Daily Miner.

Follow that link for the 271 news reports. Name ONE factual mistake in the quoted section. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BBiiis are you sure Miracle Valley was renamed, Don Stewart Evangelistic Assoc or Don Stewart Association? None of the news reports say that. It is always called Miracle Valley. Harvest09 (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Allen's Miracle Life Fellowship International was renamed. It's mentioned in several sources, such as 1) Stanley M. Burgess, Eduard M. van der Maas, and Ed van der Maas. New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Jun 1, 2002), page 312 and 2) Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1988, pg. 832. 3) Black Americans Information Directory‎ by Darren L Smith, Gale Research Inc, Page 124 and 4) Though its not a reliable source for this article Miracle Valley's current owners' webpage http://www.miraclevalley.net/gpage4.html (which mispelled Stewart's name) says it too. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment for administrators: BBiiis08 is acting like he doesn't know what he is doing when he makes it look like Miracle Valley's name was changed to, "Don Stewart Assoc." Miracle Valley's name never changed. I still find the last insertion of a paragraph by User:BBiiis08 to be offensive, It reads ("In 1970, after AA Allen died Stewart gained possession of the Miracle Valley property and renamed Allen's Miracle Life Fellowship International the Don Stewart Evangelistic Association (and later the Don Stewart Association).[5][6][7] On the property from 1979 until 1982, nearly 300 members of a group isolated themselves with Frances Thomas professing what locals said was an "anti-white doctrine."[8][9] Immigrants from Chicago and Mississippi rioted, which resulted in the death of Therial Davis, a six year old.[7] In 1982, the group had several confrontations with utility workers, neighbors and eventually law enforcement resulting in an October shoot out where two members of the church and a deputy were killed.[8][10] The land was was abandoned within a couple of weeks.[11] That same year Miracle Valley's main administration building and vast warehouse were set fire by arson, which resulted in the total destruction of the facilities.[12] The main building was valued at $2 million dollars.[13] Stewart sent multiple donation requests to some people on his 100,000 person mailing list "even though his ministry is not associated with the college and the fire damage was insured."[14] According to the press, one of his letters "gave the impression ... the fire had crippled Stewart's ministry" and another purported to include the buildings ashes with a request for $200 donations.[14] His church had issues over Stewart's financing and "questioned Stewart's fundraising techniques" before.[14][7]")

I think it may fall under the policy on biographies of living persons. It is poorly worded making it unclear who did what, to whom, why, when, and where. None of the articles cited connect Stewart to riots, murder, etc. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. Harvest09 (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. The Association's name changed, in fact it changed twice per the sources and even the Trinity Foundation article--which you claimed to read-- says it. As for the addition, see Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

References

In paragraph beginning with “G. Richard Fisher”

In regard to edits by BBiiis08, I have to say I was a little confused. I couldn’t understand why you kept saying the “Green Prayer Cloth,” was a direct mail piece by Ewing, when it clearly is not, and that the article said, (“Included in these letters was Stewart's green "prayer cloth" with claims that it has supernatural power.”), when it doesn’t, but now I understand. You are getting this from Fisher’s site. (Right?) I really don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but Fisher and Trinity don’t accurately quote the news articles that look so officially referenced in their theological dissertations. In this case, Fisher & Trinity inaccurately, quote the Dallas Morning News. You should go to the Dallas Morning News site and try to find what paragraph and what line in that paragraph it says what you and Fisher claim, there you will see that nothing of the kind is said. Thank you for pointing this out, since it is clearly yet another reason to remove references to Fisher and Trinity Foundation from the article, as well as the inaccurate statements.

RS / NPOV / WP-V: Reference to Fisher & Trinity should be removed: As the Fisher paragraph now stands, Fisher & Trinity misquote articles like the one they claim to be using in the Dallas Morning News and as a result their reference is not a RS. The way they distort the articles they claim to quote to fit their own agenda makes using them not NPOV. The statements made in the Fisher paragraph should be removed as poorly sourced and inaccurate and not WP-V.

Again I think the solution would be to remove the paragraph as it stands, with the inaccurate material and add the paragraph as follows with just the facts from what Stewart is doing and saying. Stewart offers green prayer handkerchiefs on his television program and website. [2] His justification for the distribution of the cloth is based on the story his mother told him about how she lay dying in a hospital waiting to give birth to him. A man came through the hospital and prayed for her leaving her with a prayer cloth. She recovered and gave birth to him. [3] Stewart finds biblical justification for this from the passage in Acts 19:11 – 12. [2]Harvest09 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As clearly pointed out by two people, including myself, it is you who misunderstand the articles and have misquoted them. Again, wikipedia does not shy away from controversy from RS. WP:NPOV means all RS perspectives get their say. WP:V means "verify, not truth" which is that a claim must be from RS. That is the concern not truth.

Also please keep your discussion in one place so people can follow along. You kept bringing up the same issues over and over again with any new substance. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Accusing Fisher (a living person) and Trinity Foundation of misquoting material for an agenda is not appropriate. (Your personal opinion doesn't matter as the concern is WP:V not "truth.") BBiiis08 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think this is just, "my opinion," but I really can't find what paragraph and line of that paragraph that the Dallas Morning News say, “Included in these letters was a Stewart's green "prayer cloth" with claims that it has supernatural power." Did you find it?Thanks for your hard work, Harvest09 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This was already discussed above. In the 1996 Dallas Morning News article it clearly states: "mother, according to the minister, put the prayer cloth in his... of prayer cloths, miracle car keys and stories of others' healings..." He claims the cloth has healing powers. Likewise in this source: "Don Stewart is a ... broadcasting paid-for prayer requests and selling 'miracle prayer cloths'." In this video he says the cloth is "a touch point of healing." In the Trinity article about Stewart's general claims: "..in Stewart's 'supernatural' powers." "Prosperity gospel"/healing and miracles are supernatural by definition. If you want to change it to "miracle healing" we can do that. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph

I propose adding:

In 1970, after AA Allen died Stewart gained possession of Allen's Miracle Valley property. On the property from 1979 until 1982, nearly 300 members of a group isolated themselves with Frances Thomas professing what locals said was an "anti-white doctrine." Immigrants from Chicago and Mississippi rioted, which resulted in the death of Therial Davis, a six year old. In 1982, the group had several confrontations with utility workers, neighbors and eventually law enforcement resulting in an October shoot out leaving, two members of the church and a deputy were killed. That same year Miracle Valley's main administration building and vast warehouse were set fire by arson, which resulted in the total destruction of the facilities. The main building was valued at $2 million dollars. Stewart sent multiple donation requests to some people on his 100,000 person mailing list "even though his ministry is not associated with the college and the fire damage was insured." According to the press, one of his letters "gave the impression ... the fire had crippled Stewart's ministry" and another purported to include the buildings ashes with a request for $200 donations. His church had issues over Stewart's financing and "questioned Stewart's fundraising techniques" before.

If there are any issues, what specific sentence/source is the concern about? BBiiis08 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the general concern is the connection of Stewart with the actions of the group. I think your version avoids this insinuation, but includes the episode as necessary for the latter part of the paragraph to be understood (i.e., Stewart's donation requests related to the buildings). I think it is fine, but I'm sure there will be other opinions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to the article since there appears to be consensus and no dissent after three days. BBiiis08 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I still strongly object, as stated above. Harvest09 (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You only objected after I included it. As I wrote above three days ago, "what specific sentence/source is the concern about?" BBiiis08 (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see it down here, we were talking about it at another place in the discussion page. Harvest09 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"What specific sentence/source is the concern about?" BBiiis08 (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume by the silence, there are no problems? BBiiis08 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Regarding references

The sections above are so convoluted in their formatting that I'm starting a new section to clarify a point that User:Harvest09 (formerly User:JScardilli) may misunderstand. He states: I'm sorry you think this is just, "my opinion," but I really can't find what paragraph and line of that paragraph that the Dallas Morning News say, “Included in these letters was a Stewart's green "prayer cloth" with claims that it has supernatural power." Did you find it?. Harvest09, are you suggesting that this sentence word-for-word needs to appear in the reference? Is this the basis for your "misquoting" charge? (Please be brief and avoid using bullet points in your response.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The following statement was made up by Fisher and attributed to the Dallas Morning News. “Included in these letters was a Stewart's green "prayer cloth" with claims that it has supernatural power."

It is a factual error to say Stewart's Green Prayer Cloth is a direct mail piece written by Ewing. The Dallas morning news doesn't say it was even though Fisher references it there. Stewart is barely mentioned in the Dallas article, he is only mentioned as part of a long list of people who hired Ewing to do a mail piece at one time or other. It is an important part of Stewart's ministry; it's wrong to make it look like he doesn't really care about it and just hired someone to come up with it. Stewart has done it for years He gives it away because he feels it follows the New Testament example of Paul in Acts 19 and because his mother told him a story about an event. Why wouldn't anyone want the following paragraph in the article? It is totally neutral.

"Stewart offers green prayer handkerchiefs on his television program and website. [2] His justification for the distribution of the cloth is based on the story his mother told him about how she lay dying in a hospital waiting to give birth to him. A man came through the hospital and prayed for her leaving her with a prayer cloth. She recovered and gave birth to him. [3] Stewart finds biblical justification for this from the passage in Acts 19:11 – 12."

Administrators have asked me to use bullets. In a day or two someone will come through the discussion page and put bullets in even if we don't. I thought I was being real clear, but obviously not. Thanks for your question, Harvest09 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the context in which you were asked to use bullets, but it doesn't apply here. Please keep all of your text indented to the same level. In the webpage which quotes the Dallas Morning News article, the phrase you quote does not exist, so the charge that it was "made up by Fisher" seems questionable at best. I don't have much desire to engage with you on this, since you have an obvious agenda and a weak grasp Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and norms. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As explained to Harvest09 THREE TIMES ABOVE, no article (not wikipedia, not Trinity, not Dallas Morning News) claims, "Green Prayer Cloth is a direct mail piece written by Ewing." It says nothing of the sort. You are attacking a strawman. I concur with Delicious carbuncle. BBiiis08 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm confussed, “Included in these letters was a Stewart's green prayer cloth ..." What does “Included in these letters..." mean? --Harvest09 (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

From the relevant paragraph: [Fisher]"...investigated Stewart's wealth and as he solicited funds from supporters"..."some of Stewart's fundraising letters were written by Gene Ewing"..."included in these letters"...(etc). I can see your confusion - it is possible to read this as saying that the fundraising letters specifically written by Ewing contained the prayer cloth, rather than to reading it as Stewart's fundraising letters in general contained the prayer cloth. The last sentence should probably be reworded to make this clearer. I think it has been established that Stewart sent/sends a variety of of solicitations for money, but I don't know if they all contain or reference the prayer cloth. Any thoughts? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

However, in the sentence before that "...some of Stewart's fundraising letters were written by Gene Ewing..." But whether the magical green cloth was sent with Ewings letters or not is not the point. Ewing could have written the letters and sent the cloth with it. It still does not imply "Green Prayer Cloth is a direct mail piece written by Ewing." The article makes no statement on the origins of the magical cloth, which was Harvest09's concern above. Still, I reworded it to appease Harvest09.BBiiis08 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but wouldn’t it be better to just not mention the prayer cloth at all in reference to Ewing since we don't have an RS for that? The tutorials say to avoid words like, “some,” if we can. Harvest09 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not being removed. It is a WP:RS, which discusses his part of his fundraising operations. It is a one sentence RS in an article with little RS. Your movitations are clear. BBiiis08 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

<UNINDENT> Relevant to this discussion is several quotes from the Dallas Morning article on Ewings' influence to Stewart:

"...the erstwhile Texas tent preacher is 'God's Ghostwriter'—an oft used consultant to many of the nation's best known evangelists. And with the mailing list of more than 1 million names, a computerized demographics system and a penchant for the trinket driven sales pitch, he presides over a high tech evangelical empire that has become a model for his better known colleagues."

"The News obtained copies of direct mail solicitations, all of which contained virtually identical language, but which are 'signed' by different evangelists including Robert Tilton, Rex Humbard, Frederick Eikerenkoetter (better known as 'Rev. Ike'), Don Stewart and W.V. Grant Jr. Based on the dates that they were received, the letters apparently first appeared under Mr. Ewing's signature."

The article further explains the "personal letters" are not personal and the "blessed" trinkets first came from Ewing. Unknown is to what extent Stewart's Green Prayer cloth or Peter Popoff's Prayer Mat directly came from this, but we do know is Ewing's services were used by Stewart and Stewart, at the very least, used some of Ewings' wording. This is in the context of Stewart's Magical Green Cloth. BBiiis08 (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Books by Stewart

BBiiis, I don't believe the Don Stewart who writes with Josh McDowell is the one we are writing this article about. You might want to check that. Harvest09 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I simply added the books from the Josh McDowell article which links the co-author to Don Stewart (preacher)--this article. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take them out, unless you are sure. Harvest09 (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The McDowell material was already there I just added similiar material per McDowell's page. You know that because you added a book below it in January 2009. If you weren't sure then why didn't you remove then? I have no problem with removing them. However, I wonder why now its become an issue. BBiiis08 (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed. The Don Stewart (Don Douglas Stewart) who is an evangelical scholar from Talbot Theological Seminary, is the author of the books and has no relation/nothing to do with this Stewart. BBiiis08 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stewart on deceiving evangelical audiences

In Only believe Stewart wrote:

He might have someone demonstrate a healing by bending over to touch their toes when they didn't have a problem bending over in the first place. The audience wouldn't catch that and might believe that they had seen a miracle. Well, what was an honest mistake by the evangelist soon became a formula to resort to again and again if things weren't happening. Eventually, most of the evangelists had wheelchairs available for people who had bad backs and couldn't stand in a healing line for hours. But when the evangelist got to them and pulled them up out of the wheelchair, some in the audience thought they were walking for the first time or that they had come to the revival in that wheelchair.
...

Kathryn Kuhlman rented hundreds of wheelchairs for her big crusades ... she didn’t stop the service to explain that the person being wheeled to the front in a wheelchair was only someone with back trouble. ... It happens in my own ministry.

Since Stewart is a faith healer, should we discuss the tactics used? BBiiis08 (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the line before, "Then sometimes an evangelist might misunderstand the problem. He might have someone demonstrate a healing by bending over to touch their toes..." Clearly, "He," is not referring to Stewart but to any number of evangelist. This doesn't seem to be about Stewart specifically and on this page and the previous one he is saying this as a criticism he has against other evangelists, but qualifies it by saying it can also be an honest mistake. Stewart never says it is a formula or tactic he uses and is criticizing those who do. Harvest09 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No read the whole chapter this section was taken completely out of context and isn't a "tactic" Stewart used anyway. He is talking about sick people who can't stand for long times or walk up ramps using wheelchairs and ministers beging criticised because someone in the audience misunderstood their illness. Harvest09 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "some in the audience thought they were walking for the first time" and "It happens in my own ministry" speaks for itself. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't speak for its self, Stewart is just qualifying a criticism he is making, by saying it could also be an honest mistake that has even happened to him unintentionally.Harvest09 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually to give your excuse you took the words out of context. "...she didn’t stop the service to explain that the person being wheeled to the front in a wheelchair was only someone with back trouble. ... It happens in my own ministry" speaks for itself. Anyone reading your above comments and non-explanation here can decide for themselves. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The comments seem to apply to faith-healers in general, not to Stewart specifically, and does seem to be taken out of context here. I'd leave it out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but "It happens in my own ministry," I believe applies to Stewart. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok so we have decided to leave this out.Harvest09 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For now. I'll see what I can find out about it. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Incoming!

Arizona Republic newspaper series focusing on the Don Stewart Association's charitable efforts. bomfog (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. The page has been blanked twice by anon. IPs in recent days. The papers biography on Stewart is very revealing and should be included in the article. BBiiis08 (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Some editing issues/suggestions

The reference to "other television channels" in the first paragraph is unclear, especially considering that it is preceded by references to BET and the Word Network, which are networks, not channels. If other networks are meant, this should be stated.

The cause of death of Allen has been debated, in spite of the death certificate. Regardless of what one believes about it, the cause of death on the death certificate is cirrhosis of liver, not "an alcoholic binge in 1970." Even if one believes that yes, Allen was an alcoholic, there is no evidence that I'm aware of to support the claim that "an alcoholic binge in 1970" was THE cause of death.

The connection between Don Stewart and the violence at Miracle Valley around the late '70s-early '80s is very unclearly worded. It isn't clear whether there really was a connection or even if Stewart was on the property at the time.

The statement that Stewart "produces many DVDs and 'healing packages'" is extremely unclear. How many is "many," and does "many" refer only to DVDs, or also to "healing packages," whatever they are? And does "many" mean many different titles, or many copies of the same title? I looked at Don Stewart's website, and I don't see very many DVD titles listed at all, and I was unable to find a "healing package" in his online store. What exactly is a "healing package," and if this is so significant and if he was "producing" so many of them, then why does there seem to be no mention of it in Stewart's website?

The statement that the book Only Believe was written by Don Stewart is, in my estimation, highly inaccurate. Although his name is on the cover as though he was the author, and although Stewart refers to himself as author in "A Word from the Author" in the first few pages, and although it's copyrighted by Don Stewart, it's actually a transcript of an interview with Stewart that was conducted by Doug Wead. Wead's questions appear in bold face, followed by Stewart's answers. This is explained on the copyright page near the front of the book.

One question then becomes whether he is the same Doug Wead who was worked with Kenneth Copeland recently, but I don't know anything about that or whether it's anything that should be pursued or that could be pursued with accuracy and objectivity. Apparently this article had said earlier that the book was written by Don Stewart "with" Doug Wead, or something to that effect, until someone changed it to say that Don Stewart wrote it. I believe that the fact that all Don Stewart did was to answer questions is significant.

The statement about his family earning "hundreds of thousands of dollars from his church" isn't the sort of statement that belongs in an encyclopedia. Not only is it openly accusatory, but it's so vague as to be meaningless. Does the author mean that they collectively earn that much? If so, so what?

Six references are made to Don Stewart's church. One seems to suggest that his ministry organization is "his church." Other than that, there's no explanation as to what is meant by "his church." Does the author mean a ministry organization? Generally, when people read the word "church" they think in terms of services/meetings and an in-person congregation. Is that the scenario here, or is "church" simply a poor word choice for "ministry organization"?

In the second paragraph, why is there a slash mark in front of the quote and no ending quotation mark at the end of the quote? I won't fix it, because I'm not sure where the quote ends.

A comma was badly needed in the 3rd paragraph between "Leroy Jenkins" and the "Stewart" that immediately follows. I inserted one, and I also changed the badly misspelled "protogee" to "protege." I corrected the spelling of Kathryn Kuhlman's last name from Khulman to Kuhlman, but I did not fix the poorly worded phrase "that includes Oral Roberts, Kathryn Kuhlman, A.A. Allen, and Benny Hinn" in reference to the book Only Believe. "Includes" in what sense? That's so vague as to be meaningless. Books don't include people. Books may include discussions of people or sections about certain people, but they don't "include" people.

I would suggest removing the claim that Stewart tried to remove alcohol bottles from Allen's room before the police claimed, since this is such a controversial area and since only source is cited, and one that isn't an official record.

My personal view is that there's little specificity or accuracy in referring to Stewart as a "televangelist," a term that's employed in the first paragraph. "Evangelist" is supposed to refer to a specific type of ministry. It seems as though this has become a catch-all term applied to any nondenominational minister of any sort, as long as he or she is on TV. Yes, the term "evangelist" has been applied to Stewart, but is that primarily what he does? Even if can be shown to be accurate in a literal sense, it's a trigger word, in other words an emotionally charged word with negative connotations.

Mtnbuilder (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Don Stewart (preacher). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.donstewartassociation.com/don_stewartpage.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don Stewart (preacher). 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/20070515042609/http://www.trinityfi.org:80/press/donstewart.html to http://www.trinityfi.org/press/donstewart.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)