Talk:W. V. Grant

Stating what one saw

I would like to know how using wiki's guidelines one could add information one saw as an eyewitness? If there were only people there, no news media etc. I see no issue in stating what you saw, and stating it was an eyewitness case. Using Wiki guidelines, if Wiki existed when Mosew parted the Red Sea you could not include the information because it was first hand information.

I would like to state for the record, that I do not personal know W.V. Grant, I recently attended a service he preached at. I saw actual miracles in front of my eyes within feet of where I was sitting. It was not like he was on a stage, the two people I saw healed were sitting next to me by what I believe was the power of God to glorify the name of Jesus Christ. If you were not there, it would be hard to believe. I was there and it was amazing. No one could have bulled off a stunt next to me. Not even Steven Spielberg could have done this. If this man made a mistake with his taxes or other things, it does not mean God could not use him. None of us are perfect. I would like to add what I saw to the article as an eyewitness. I would like to also point out that I arrived at the church before he did, no one one was there yet. He arrived after me and everything was brought in from his car. People will always say things are not from God, even the magicians told Pharaoh that Moses was using a simple trick and we see how truthful this state me was.

Now I understand that there will be editors that do not believe in God, those of other faiths and finally those that just don't believe miracle happen any today anymore. But with all the negative unbalanced writing that is in this article cannot something be added by a person who saw a miracle from God? Sorry to disappoint any of you that think I am an emotional nut. I know what I saw and it saw it next to me.

Please don't ask me what I saw on my talk page. Either let me add it or refuse, if I told you, you still would not believe.

But you could tell me if you agree to include it.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable secondary sources, not personal observations. This has nothing to do with someone's personal beliefs. Unfortunately, you talking about what you saw isn't a reliable secondary source. If we open up every article for personal testimony, what's to stop people from coming here to relate their negative experiences with the subject? Dayewalker (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Daywalker, as I stated to you. I disagree with your interpretation of the rule. I posted what I believe on this talk page to get other editors opinions (not yours) I know yours already.

Your are incorrect in assuming that an eyewitness case cannot be include if it is not stated as such. In the same way the rule about photo's does not apply about a photo if there is absolutely no other alternative but to include the photo in question that is not in the public domain. For example the person is deseased.

By your interfering with me getting other opinions on this topic, I will assume you have a person bias in this matter and will ask you to remove yourself. You, a person who want to be and Admin should know the rules. I am asking for "Other" editors opinions. I feel that a one time event can be included in the article if there was an eyewitness saw it and I am a person that never met the man, but I will go to church services he attends because of what I saw. This does not mean I want to write pro, but the article is written one sided in a "con". It is not balanced at all, and I now think you are part of the problem. I respectfully let me get other opinions and I respectfully request you not try to influence their decisions. I am a Christan, I do not know what your faith is, but it is awesome to see something happen happen in from of your eyes that is unexplainable.

You are the one who asked me to post to talk page to get other opinions, are you now trying to impeded this? I really don't understand what your motivation is.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Me commenting on your post here is not preventing other people from also commenting. In fact, if you'll check the page log here, I moved your comment to the bottom of the page so more people would be able to see it and respond.

Sorry, I will not remove myself from this article. Merely disagreeing with you wanting to add your personal testimony to this page does not warrant me being banned from it. If you disagree, feel free to ask an admin or file a case on one of the notice boards.

If you're interested in hearing more from other editors, you might want to file an request for comment on this issue. That will alert other editors to the situation. Dayewalker (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Not gonna happen. We do not include eyewitness testimony; never have, never will. We require verifiable neutral, third-party references from reliable sources. Any police officer or criminal-practice attorney can tell you that eyewitnesses are notoriously not reliable sources, and stage magicians (among others) make a living from the inability of onlookers to accurately interpret the testimony of their own eyes. This is not reflective of a bias against you, or against religion in general, or against faith healers in general; this is policy and will not be waived just because of what you claim you believe you saw. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Orange Mike is correct about Wikipedia policy here. (We get used to it after a while... ) Seriously, even if eye-witness testimony were 100% reliable, we still couldn't include it in Wikipedia. Our policies are pretty strict on that. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Verifiable Data Is not Available for claims in this Article

Reading though the cite's of the article I have noticed that # James Randi exposes WV Grant on West 57th Street - Faith Healing 2/2 and Faith Healing 1/2 cannot be verified. Therefore would not the wiki rules require either a new cite or the data to be removed?

I cannot see the video. If the video is private or removed and not public how can it be verified.

If you want to quote rules to me, then don't the rules apply to all. You need to understand I want and always want fair neutral articles, always have. Even if I am really for (or) against something I write from a neutral point of view.

As I look at the comments on this page it does not look like this article is fair and balanced but it is getting there.

If you do not like this man, OK, take it someplace else other than wiki. There is no place for this kinda stuff here.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just go through the article and remove the unsourced items or, if you would rather wait, mark them with { { f a c t } } and wait for a while. But, sure, you can remove the unsourced stuff, or look for a source yourself, or whatever. Good luck! Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:DEADLINK, the material shouldn't be immediately reverted. As it was there once and verified, that policy states "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." Dayewalker (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but if the statement seems a bit dodgy and cannot be otherwise verified, then it can be removed and the burden of proof is on the person who wants to put it back. Wikipedia:SOURCE#Burden_of_evidence. Unfortunately, if that person wants to cite a source that is not available to the general public (like a book in his library), there doesn't seem to be much that can be done except to discuss the removal on the Talk Page and go with whatever WP:Consensus is there. Ain't editing fun, though? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Randi YouTube links are not deadlinks, but rather lead to a "private video" messaage and require a password for access. Since we cannot verify their copyright status, nor their alleged content, I have removed them from the "External links" section. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well OrangeMike, thank you for re-deleting what I deleted, or maybe un-reverting. As I stated, previously, "Rani" in "my personal opinion" has much to to gain from making faith healers look like "frauds" so, it is my opinion once again, that information from this source be taken like a grain of salt as an unreliable source of information. My Point: Just because someone writes a book does not mean what is written in the book is correct (or better said) just because a source may be quoted does not mean it should be or the information included in Wiki.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Midstates Bible College

Colleges and Universities come in two flavors, accredited and non-accredited, just because a college is non-accredited does not mean that it is a phony. Esp. When it comes to colleges and Universities that deal with the degree of DD. I am not saying it is right or wrong, I am merely stating that they do not have to register in any manner and because of this "loop-hole" you really should not use the word phony. "non-Accredited" is more accurate. If you want to continue and say it was not registered as a business that is fine, but it is not required to if it does not seek a tuition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc9000 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia did not use the word "phony." A third party who was being quoted used the word. To falsify a direct quote just because you disagree with it is a species of vandalism, and will be swiftly reverted. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me state the point more plainly. If you say this article is from a neutral POV why is this fact even included since these types of degrees are honorary anyway? The only purpose I can personally see is to make the person look worse than the article already portrays him.

Once again, I don't want to spin a Positive POV but I do not see the relevance of this fact, unless you are trying to spin a negative POV. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Divinity

I tried to alter the word "phony" and there was an objection, therefore why not remove the entire fact? Unless of course you want to spin a negative POV... (Comments?)

--- Here is the original text I do not see the relevance ---

Randi examined Grant's practices in his 1987 book, The Faith Healers, looking at the claimed miracles and the biography. Randi stated:

. . . even Grant's college degree is phony. He claims that he obtained it from "Midstates Bible College" in Des Moines in 1972. He displays the diploma on his office wall. But Midstates wasn't then and isn't now accredited with the Iowa Department of Public Instruction, as all parochial and public schools are required to be. It wasn't recorded with the secretary of state's office in Iowa as a corporation; nor was it listed in the county recorder's office. It didn't even show up in the telephone directory.

As of 2010 Grant's website made no mention of Midstates, instead listing degrees earned from Dallas Baptist University and Kingsway Bible Seminary.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to see what can be accomplished by your removing information. The reader is free to agree or disagree with Mr. Randi's report. No harm, no foul. If you can ADD information supporting the view that Mr. Grant is on the level, or that he never claimed a degree from a non-existent university, that would be an important contribution. Why don't you get yourself interviewed by a mainstream news source so that your views will be on the public record and can then be used in Wikipedia? Or, you can find a blog or listserv of some sort that will post them. Again, good luck! GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

George, I did the removal because the information, at least in my my mind is not relevant. Did you look up the link I included abut these degrees? Hard to believe but anyone in the USA can hand them out. That is why I removed it. His degree in no more phony than any one elses that has one of them. It is a stated fact, if you look at the link.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I frankly think theconsensus is going to be to keep Randi's observation in the article. It says what he said. He seems to have spent some time checking out the colleges. Nevertheless, I did add some info about Mr. Grant's degrees that I took from the official Web site. Not sure how you intend to go ahead with your observation. You might take it to a WP:Request for comment. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I cannot see how a lie, can be considered a statement that should be continued to be included in the article. Can you explain this. This statement is a lie to the best of my knowledge: The school was required to be listed with the Iowa Department of Public Instruction.

To the best of my knowledge, the school does not have be registered at all and I can find no reference that states this information is true. So if something is not true, I assume it is false therefore I do not see an issue in removing it and think you should re-think leaving the fact in since it is a mis-statement. Show me a cite that says a school offering DD degrees need to be registered, it is not true.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What you have to do is to find a good source that denies the statement made by Randi in his book, way back when. Any reader is free to disagree with any given statement in a Wikipedia article, just as you have done—that's why sources are required, so the reader can judge. I'm afraid it is a lost cause for you to try to REMOVE anything from the article: What you have to do is to ADD something that will "give the other side," if there is one. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What about a YouTube video of a leg growing out when Grant prays for healing in the Name of Jesus when the person has no shoes on before or after or during? I am not sure how a "shoe" trick could happen when there are no shoes involved... Can a You Tube video be used for a cite?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

References

The Bible Should be an authoritative 3rd party source

I am at a lose of what you two people are trying to do. Truly, This is my point, a person wrote a book stating this was all fake, That person is a magician, the Bible forbids Magic. You actual think that it is my "Opinion about" what I quoted? I have seen in many articles where notes were added. So you make me curious are you really trying to make this article fair and balanced? It seems each edit I make to try to make it fair, gets reverted.

Yes it is my opinion he has something to make by writing a book. Anyone writing a book will have a monetary motive, so exactly why cannot this be stated and if you have an issue with how I stated it, how may this point be made know to the reader?

I really don't have a lot of time quibbling over this, I just have some available time right now I think the POV I inserted balances the negative POV of Randi, is this not a correct assumption on my part? I must be missing something, I thought we were suppose to write from a neutral POV, I see a total negative, and I tried to offset this. Is this not correct?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For a Christian like myself, the Holy Bible is an authoritative source of information on my Savior and his message. For many billions of people on this planet, it is not considered anything of the sort; and it is not considered an authoritative source in Wikipedia, which is a religiously-neutral project.

That's got nothing to do with what you are doing here. You are trying to insert your unsourced speculation about the motivations of a living person with a worldwide reputation in his field, based on your personal speculative interpretation of the Holy Bible, into an article about a third person. If you want to do that kind of thing, do it in your own blog or maybe Conservapedia; it has no place in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not speculation. Randi states that he bent a fork with pysic power, not an illusion or stage magic, he states that he is an atiest. As a Christian, I believe that these powers either come from God or Satan. Randi denies God, therefore the power he attests is from Satan.

Therefore, the quotes I used from the Bible are authoritative for the purpose of what I used it for, I intended to re-insert. Please see Wiki article on Randi for source of evidence.

Comments? I will wait one day for your additional excuses why I cannot quote what is said in the Bible as well as the Wiki article.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Haiti Scandal

Here is an issue I am having trying to investigate the truth of matters. This website for example, claims Grant is pocketing money: http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume36/GOT036146.html However I cannot verify the original story since I cannot seem to find it on ABC's website, so in fact is what I see true or made up?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Will you be adding this material to the article on Mr. Grant? Looks like this is a second-hand source, and you are right to be wary of it. Poke around some more until you can get another verification of what Truth says. Of course, it would be better if you could find a link to or a report about the TV feature. Good luck in hunting! GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to Liberty magazine about the same thing. http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=548. Good luck. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, No I will not be adding it unless, I find the source, which I cannot find. (I am noting this because there is other information in this article that appears the same, from a 3rd party. I like to investigate things and be sure. I do not like to commit character assination. as this article appears to do. But if I find fault, there no way I would not include it.)

There are many things in this article that I cannot verify, including dead links that have been dead for more than 2 years. How long exactly can they be a a cite?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

If you disagree with an edit I do in this article and you revert it, you are suppose to explain why you are doing the revert, esp. since I take the time to explain why I am making the change in the first place. Thank You. akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Instructions from Grant official website . . .

Just a note to tell the people interested in this article that Grant's official website urged everybody to go to the Grant article on January 5, presumably 2011, to edit this article in accordance with the message below:

We need the help of everyone to get a more accurate depiction of WV Grant on Wikipedia. We have rewritten his biography to reflect accurate and factual information about his life. The information being displayed on Wikipedia right now was posted and written by a skeptic who has featured inaccurate information and chosen to show nothing but an issue that happened many years ago. Such facts as when the Eagles Nest was founded is wrong and other such information also. We have made several attempts to change the biography with 100% accurate information and they continue to remove it on the basis that we can not back it up. So we are asking for everyone to create a Wiki account and on the date specified below login and petition the new biography to stay and that it is fact. We will repost the new biography on this date and at the same time we need everyone to login go to the discussion page and voice your opinion and thoughts on keeping the new biography. There are powers in #s and if we can get enough people to back it up they will have no choice but to allow it to stay. Simply follow the instructions below.

The instructions were at http://www.wvgrantchurch.com/wiki as of Monday, August 8, 1011.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Go here and click from update to update and you can see the effect of the above: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:W._V._Grant&diff=next&oldid=333102211 Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it turns out it was 2010. Shame-facedly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-Writing the article?

Well when I saw the tag, I was "overjoyed" that other editors besides me see that the article is not written from a N - POV and most of these Cites should not be in here as cite's (hopefully this is the reason for the rewrite)

Unlike other editors, I just want information that is accurate included in Wiki and and I do not like arm-twisting by others and I enjoy collaboration from with other editors. (proper research is a must, just because you can cite something does not always mean it should and included.

As a Christian myself, I am under the impression that non-Christians try "alter" facts. As for me, no matter what I write about, it has to be from a neutral POV because that is what I agreed to when I signed up for Wiki, so no matter what I think, only true facts should be included, not hearsay and false statements that others make that can be substantiated.

I will be here helping in this effort, I will make time for this.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Rules

While I am typing, could someone tell me the rule that says if a secondary source is false information it cannot be removed from wiki? I know many wiki rules. But not one that says false information cannot be removed. So Why is the false information Randi the Magician stated in his book allowed to be in the article?

My Point: This guy wrote a book for profit, trying to say faith healers are a bunch of lairs correct? So he had motive to lie, to sell books and make profit from the sales of these books. But when I try to edit this article and remove data that I know is a lie and I have a verifiable secondary source, could you explain to me why the edit is revert over and over again? I just don't see a reason to leave the information in the article and dispute it with a cite when the information was not researched properly and is not correct?

How about, I remove the data and place the secondary source on the talk page?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability always trumps personally perceived "Truth". This is one of the most fundamental precepts upon which Wikipedia operates. If editors disagree personally then they are free to start their own blog and entertain the world with their own personal view, but as long as their arguments consist of nothing more substantial than their own point-of-view and original research, these arguments cannot fail to be disregarded. I know this may seem counter-intuitive, but it's how we work. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I will also point out that unlike most faith-healers, Randi has a solid reputation for honesty and frank forthrightness. Saying he only wrote the book in order to make money is an ad hominem attack that can be made against almost anybody who ever had a book published, from Billy Graham to Al Franken to Sarah Palin to Richard Nixon! You have not been providing solid sourcing, you have been yelling "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

akc9000 has removed correctly referenced material and yet left in a paragraph that says Grant has "more or less an honorary D.D." clearly this vague recollection has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia without a solid reliable secondary source!Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is correct. I was told I could change a direct quote, Therefore, the proper wording would be an Honorary Degree but that would be changing a direct quote. Suggestions?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It was properly referenced but "mis-information" as since the school exists but the name changed.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE to see how to cite a reliable source. I assume you mean you were told you COULD NOT change a direct quote? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on further examination, the "more-or-less honorary" is properly cited, Teapotgeorge, as a claim made by Grant himself. The subject of an article is a reliable source for claims the subject is making. Al, I apologize for not double-checking that more closely. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why an I being threatened with a block? Is this the way Wiki works now you just strong arm your will

I see no reason for this line of text at the top of the article, I remove it and I am threatened? Esp. since this information has an ENTIRE section in the article. So why when I removed it from the top am I threatened? This line was not there a day or two ago was it? This article is never going to be from a N-Point of View is it? And if someone like me tries to fix something you threaten him?

I should say that there is a rule against that, and I think I have been a real team player in this article. I have been posting to the talk page / personal talk pages and you want to continue to say I am doing something wrong?

Maybe it is you who are threatening me teapotGeorge, should be blocked since I did nothing but try to do constructive edits and be a team player, the same way I have been for years. Nothing new for me.

Anyone want to explain why these threats are being made to me?

Thank You.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That information was in the article when it was first created, at 14:30 hours (2:30 p.m.) on July 18, 2005!

You continue to remove information that makes you unhappy, and do not listen when other editors attempt to explain to you what is wrong with your edits. That is not strongarming; it is attempting to maintain the integrity of the article. Your edits in other fields have been useful for quite some time, and nobody wants to chase you away; we just ask that you abide by our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No It Was Not. Where don't tell me that, I know how to look at version history too. I just pasted what I saw.

Have a good day.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You must not have gone far enough back in the version history. The very first version of this article from back in 2005 included the following "Grant was investigated by Trinity Foundation for misusing ministry funds for personal gain, including building a lavish house in De Soto, Texas with nine bathrooms. Later, the Internal Revenue Service looked into Grant's ministry, and Grant was imprisoned on tax evasion charges." Our current language is much more neutral and encyclopedic in tone. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed . . .

As of today, there are two places marked Citation needed. It would be nice if folks could direct their energy to finding some solid sources for those two statements. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions on Citations Needed

Hello Everyone, I have a question, I would still like to try to help if people would be willing to explain stuff to me instead of warning that my edit is distruptive and I am going to be blocked without warning... It is making feel uneasy about continuing to help with this article.

Issue 1: In any event, in all my years, with wiki, I never ran into an issue such as this, so maybe someone can help me understand BEFORE people jump all over me, and point me to a rule on the subject.

I called the College to confirm that the name was changed and D.D. Degree really was given to Grant and I asked them for a reference point for the cite. The women told me the information is no longer on the website but was correct. Can the women, an employee of the school be used as a site even though it was I who called to confirm?

If not, tell me what needs to be done, I did take the time to try to get the cite.

Issue 2:

Do medical records count as authoritative proof? Last night a women went to W.V. Grant in front of the church and told how her spine was healed and hand in her hand radiological reports before and after.

I have a copy of these reports, I wanted to show my mom. You see I told family and friends what I saw happen and I get stared at a lot. So while I have these copies, can they be used in a new section of the article ? I mean doctor reports should count right? Or will you tell me it does not count because I have the copy? I am more than willing to fax it to wiki.

Let me know, and try not to beat up on me, just explain things. Thanks Al

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

None of that is published; none of it is verifiable, and the alleged doctor's reports are certainly the epitome of failing our tests for reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Once the world's media have reported the miracle (as they surely will if it's true) you will have plenty of reliable third party references to add to the article. CheersTeapotgeorge^Talk 16:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

--In a way I can understand but an MRI report showing a change is quite "amazing" at least in my eyes. Media coverage to me, means not to much since I seen many things 'reported' that I do not believe, but if an MRI report is considered "opinion" I can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc9000 (talk • contribs)

As someone who's worked in the media, if you can give someone an MRI directly before and after a minister lays hands on them and show miraculous improvement, please call some local media organization and show it to them. If such a thing existed and could be proven, it would definitely be noteworthy. Dayewalker (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Doctor's Report with MRI results

-- For my own curiosity, I presented the report to my mom's doctor, that states the Spine was straighten by some cause, possibly a spasm, The doctor replied, there is no way scoliosis could be corrected by a spasm, if it could, everyone would induce one to cure the aliment.

I don't work with any media newspapers etc all I can do is tell people what I saw. It was like pages out of the Bible, the blind now see, the lame walked etc. He prayed for about 90 percent of the church, that had physical problems. I should also note the a "Slight of Hand" trick that Randi talks about works great on a "stage" but I don't see how it could be when they return to their seat and still their leg is restored, and you walk and look before and after with your own eyes.

But as I said from the beginning I am a trusting person. Not to many people believe me, but I saw what I saw and I would be a fool to say I did not see what I saw.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

His Claim not to be a Faith Healer

I don't see any issue with this, any Christian that prays for someone gives the Glory to God and Jesus for the Miracle not to themselves. This is even true in Biblical times, they tried to worship Paul the Apostle and he said the Mircle was not done by him but to glorify the name of the Lord Jesus Christs name.

So what is the point of including this fact in a light that makes it seems unique to this man?

Now I know if I touch the article everyone is going to accuse me of all kinds of things so I am asking; why is the fact presented in a way that could be construed in a Negative -POV as if this is something special that only this Christian states?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

He is trying to change the meaning of the term "faith healer" from the generally understood definition of the term (under which he certainly does claim to be what most people call a "faith healer") to his own idiosyncratic definition (one often favored by purported faith healers and their advocates, but not by much of anybody else). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"So what is the point of including this fact in a light that makes it seems unique to this man?" It was enough of a point to be included in the Dallas Morning News article titled "Miracles on Davis Street?" (which I have downloaded and have on my desk in front of me), and it is basically giving Mr. Grant's point of view vis-a-vis faith-healing. The WP article originally said, "Grant claims to be a faith healer," then it was changed to "Grant says he is a faith healer," but both of those statements are definitely not true, so now the pagragraph reads that he doesn't claim to be faith healer, but God does the healing. This is not unusual for those who know about such things, but lots of folks don't understand what Christians believe about healing through faith, so it is included here because it is important in the context of understanding what this evangelist believes. Does akc9000 want this graf omitted, or just what? In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not say the fact should be omitted, I am saying the fact is stated improperly. A better way to state this would be, "Grant does not claim to be able to heal anyone but attests that the healing is done by God to glorify Jesus Christ's name". This would be accurate and from a neutral-POV This is what the man states. or Jesus is he healer. The point is, he is giving the Glory to God and not claiming any glory for himself, as any Christian would do.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can only add that which we have a citation for. I've downloaded the article in question, and the quotation as now given in Wikpedia is correct. Perhaps Mr. Grant did not use the exact words that akc9000 did in his or her comment, but the meaning seems to be about the same. Perhaps we can find some other editors to take a look-see themselves. Nobody here is wedded to any given turn of phrase that turns out to be erroneous. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not add info to this article without cite's

If people are going to complain to me about cite's and removing information that I do not believe is incorrect. I "respectfully" ask you "all" to do the same that you demandand of me. Is this not fair? Do not wiki's rules apply to all?

So I ask this fact be removed until there is a cite to back it up. I think the people twisting my arm and accusing me of things and stating I am going to be blocked from editing need to follow the same rules they demand upon me. Or are there two sets of rule? 1 set of rules for those that believe in Miracles and another set that don't?

Remove this so called fact that has been added with no cite. Please, please, let me see a referencing cite that I can confirm, I want really want to see.

Otherwise, I will add information to this article, while cite's are pending as well.

And please don't tell me you are going to block me from editing, if you can add what you want without a cite, so can I. Fair?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this post. Which item are you objecting to now???? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would you "remove" something I added to the article, when I told you I would be adding a cite? amd shy would others add informmation with no cite? Someone removed data I just added and yet this was just added with no cite: 2011: In April, British mentalist Derren Brown revealed what was termed Grant's deception on a program called "Miracles for Sale" broadcast on Channel 4. Brown and his team made two visits to Grant's church in Dallas. During the first visit, Grant claimed that "God" had told him the name of a member of Brown's team, but the name he gave out was a false one that the person had written on a contact card prior to the start of the service. This indicated that Grant's knowledge came from the card and not from any supernatural means. On their second visit, Grant performed his leg lengthening "miracle" on Brown himself. The footage showed Grant using the same shoe-manipulation technique that Brown had exposed earlier on the program.[citation needed]

Please explain, thanks!

14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't add data, you added a statement of opinion about Randi and his research. The television report is generally acknowledged to exist, we're just stuck without a good link to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you yourself watch it? How do you know it really was aired?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Grant's degrees . . .

Can anybody clarify the information about Kingsway? It is named in two different ways. We should be consistent or explain the inconsistency. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Corrected it to Kingsway Christian College in accordance with their website, http://www.kingsway.edu/ It should be noted that the link to them from the affiliated "Kingsway Fellowship International" is labeled "Kingsway Bible College". I recommend the KFI website http://www.kingswayfellowship.org/Default.htm for some fascinating insight as to their standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

-- This somewhat correct, I am waiting for a cite location... also, this is why Randi did not find the name of the school in the phone book. I am waiting for a place of reference, but someone already removed my edit. Neither of these names existed at the time Grant "recieved" his degree and there is no telling what the standards where back then.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Grant graduated with a degree from: Dallas Baptist University (not honorary) could explain how this can be cited?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Same as other facts: citation from an article in a newspaper or book or other reliable source. Otherwise, we can say he claims it and cite that claim to his website or whatever. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

His website does not say he graduated from Dallas Baptist, but that he has a master's degree from there. That fact is in this article as of this date. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reason why I asked about the cite, I saw the info on a facebook page, I then tried to find the information on the university website, did not understand how they do things, so I called them, registrar confirmed information but information is not available online from the school, so I continue to look for a cite for information that was confirmed but I do not know how to cite the office of the Registrar.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal information from a registrar is not published, is not verifiable, and does not belong here. Frankly, though, we have lots of articles where the subject's claim to a degree is not questioned. By comparison, this is incredibly trivial. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not categorize any given editor's desire to verify information as trivial. I would instead applaud it. But that's just me. Others might, of course, disagree. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you GeorgeLouis, try to do what I tell people I will do, and I did say I would try to find someplace to cite his degrees, there are actually a number of them.

I don't have the time as I did years ago but I want to try to help with this article.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

W.V. Grant Sr.

This question may be off topic, but his father V.W. Grant Sr. wrote more books than any other person and should be in the Guesses Book of Word Records. Would this not be noteworthy to mention in this article?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it to this article. It is just far enough off top topic that somebody might revert it, and then we would have another quarrel. Maybe his father should have his own article? GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

George, I think that is a good idea actually, His father past away, no one can say the father is doing anything wrong, the man is deceased and he did alot of good, this was brought up by a friend John who came over my home telling me about W.V. Sr. Would you be willing to help me? I still don't have too much time to help in wiki as I used to but this will change. (also considering the fact if I move a period in this article it gets reverted there is not to much here for me to help with unfortunately, Still don't understand the resentment of my edits or me.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This assertion is again unsourced. Most people concede that in fact Ryoki Inoue wrote more books than any other person. What grounds did this guy John have for this claim? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I cannot find a place to cite, Grant Sr. wrote Christian 607 books before his death in 1983 but I cannot find a reference for this except Grant's website yet.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do these two statements contradict each other? (Concerning conviction)

One statement says: release from prison he has restarted his ministry

another statement says 30,000 fine and probation. Normally probation means you did not go to jail correct? He was sententeced to jail time but I don't think by reading this he went to jail, he was given probation... So something may be amiss here. I don't know, I never was in court for tax evasion so I don't exactly know how it works but I do notice there is no cite for the jail time.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I will check it out. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked the source and made some changes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks George makes more sense now, before it was confusing.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

YouTube videos . . .

This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites Videos, of course, can always be edited, trimmed, etc. Trust me; somebody will challenge it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting how Randi's videos were include and you could not even see them. Does not seem like a Neutral POV. The more I listen the more it "appears" that the POV card is only played when you disagree with something you want added but if you want it added oh by all means add it.

I really think those statements by Randi about the degree should be removed, This guy has lots of degrees. I don't see how when something is added to an article it cannot be removed when it is not correct.

If anyone thinks the guy is a con-artist, no problem, it does not mean he did not graduate college. I just think thinks that "things" that don't hold water should not be included and then rebutted. Waste of time and reading. IMHO

Does not seem the correct way to act when when writing an article on wiki.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion?

Editors working here seem very patient, but really there are only two opinions involved: Is this article one sided or not (and if it not, how can the one-sidedness be remedied)? I propose getting a neutral editor in here to look at the issues. See Wikipedia:Third_opinion/User_FAQ#What_if_my_dispute_has_two_viewpoints_but_multiple_editors.3F. Does any object or see any other way around this contretemps? A third opinion is a lightweight way of diffusing disputes. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It would appear it depends on who the third person is.

Obviously to me IMHO, the dispute is over who believe in Miracles and who does not. Even if this guy (W.V. Grant) "steals, lies, cheats, etc.", if you know your Bible you would know that Gifts of the Holy Spirit are not taken away for him sinning. But there is a high price to pay however. This is what the scripture is talking about that says: But Lord, we cast out demons in your name, healed the sick, etc. and Jesus replies: I say I never knew you.

I welcome a third opinion and I also inserted "facts about Randi" into the article that are stated in his Wiki article that there cannot be contention over since they are stated by Randi himself until this matter is resolved.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: If it was deemed that the Randi Claims stay, which I think they should be removed. I would "suggest" they all go into one spot "detractors" for example so there can be a counter-balance statement in one spot.

Also if there is going to be someone else looking at this article, they should go over the enter thing. I don't think the article is from a neutral POV. When I stated that the sites were from dead links from 2 years ago they were rapidly replaced with links that you had to pay for and/or private books that I cannot verify without spending money. It is still beyond me how the leg growing Miracle is a stage trick when I saw it done in person without shoes on. I just think IMHO there is an agenda here to discredit this person beyond the wrong he did. This article how it is written is not from a Neutral POV. I cannot even fathom how anyone could think it is.

Once again, I don't want more than treat the guy properly they way you would want to be treated and not commit character assassination. If the editors are not trying to destroy this man tell me why the fact that he committed tax fraud, (which he told the judge was a mistake, and received a light sentence for statement NEEDS to remain on the top of this article? OrangeMike stated it needs to stay there because this is a lot of what this guy is guy is about. I think the words were this "defines" him, I don't remember exactly Well in my mind that is from a Negative point of view, overlooking all the good he did before and after the fact. That statement should be removed, there is a whole section for his tax problems. Sixteen months in jail and it actually was less, released on good behavior as a model prisoner, does not make a man's life or career it makes 16 months of 45 years. How does this define him? Nothing else matters? Statements about his degree that are false can remain? Give me a break. Keep telling me this article is from a N point of view... Cannot be more negative. I don't want to argue, I want to be fair.

Well, I asked for a third opinion in these words: " Is this article written from a neutral point of view? If not, how can it be improved? There are more than two editors involved, but only two sides to this question. All the editors seem to be very polite to each other; it's just a difference of opinion. " I hope somebody else chimes in. This is the procedure that is supposed to be used: Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Providing_third_opinions. Sincerely, in good faith, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I think that this article is generally neutral in terms of language, but does seem to drag on about a few things. The television coverage seems a bit long, I would suggest removing the materials about the ABC news / Trinity foundation program since it is of unclear value. I would also suggest removing the Faith Healing section -- I'm not sure what it adds to the article and it seems a bit self-serving. The Eagles nest section also does not provide any information not already mentioned in the lead. I think it would also make the whole thing a lot more clear if the lead clearly mentioned that his sermons were heavily "healing" themed. The article could also use more information on his church and work, but the information on his run-in with the law also needs to stay in, since it's one of the main reasons why he is notable.—A13ean (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. In response:

1. The faith healing section is included to make it clear that the gentleman does not claim to heal sickness himself; he says he is not a "faith healer," an assertion that was baldly made in earlier versions of this article and has now been omitted.
2. Personally I think the "one-sidedness" of the article could be cured if another section were added, to be titled "Supporters." The editor adding the information, of course, would have to provide the usual reliable sources.
3. The other very welcome comments by A13ean don't seem to bear on the dispute but can be valuable in editing the article, which has already been heavily worked over.

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I Thank you as well and now I understand. If the only thing that makes this individual notable is the tax scandal and his sentence; I see why it is in the beginning of the article and you refuse to remove it. You see "in my eyes" I thought the individual was notable for all the other things he did as well, forgetting about the Miricles (if you can) the help of the poor in Dallas etc. If all the other things this man did are not notable, I now understand why this artilce is written with a negative POV (because there is no positive-pov, I agree with the recommendations.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My Edit Was Removed Again !

Ok, I added a note to the article, which was a statement of fact from Randi's article and OrangeMike removed the edit and sent me a warning. Why can not a statement of fact be included?

What is going on here? OrangeMike you should know that that edit was not intended as slander it came right out of Randi's article.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You keep inserting your opinions into this article. Your opinions about how Randi's religious beliefs might affect his testimony as a subject matter expert have no place in this article. This is the second time, at least, that you've tried to impeach what he says based on your assumptions about how his profession (in one case) or his irreligion (in the other) might cause him to be biased. This is called the argumentum ad hominem and has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much any sentence that begins "It should be noted..." is a personal opinion, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted has nothing to do with opinion.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It has everything to do with opinion. You feel a certain way about Randi, and you feel that to balance out his professional opinion, everyone should know how you feel he should be viewed. It's obvious from your background and your edits that you want his opinions removed, or at the least, rebutted because he disagrees with you religiously. Opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Say what you want but I was very careful NOT to include my opinion. I stated a line of text from his wiki article. Should not the reader be aware of his viewpoint and his opinion? I still do not see how this is my point of view. As for removing his statements. That is not correct. The statement I objected to was the statement about the degree being bogus, since it is not true. Just because he wrote it in a book does not make it true. The name was changed of the school, that's all, and nowhere is that fact listed and yet, when I tried to add it to the article, someone removed it stating I needed a cite, YET! the 2011 information is added without a cite. I am under the impression that you think a am PRO Grant and want the article that way. To the contrary, I want a balanced article and if I find a cite for that Hatti scandal I would add it myself but I cannot find it nor prove it. I am sure if I added that, no one would object, correct?

I however want the same rules that apply to me, to apply to everyone else, so I ask AGAIN for the 2011 reference to be removed since there is no cite.

It is very obvious what his opinion is if someone clicked on the link but what about those that do not? It was merely a one line statement. That any reader would have seen if they read his article correct?

So what is the objections to any edit I make? Because I want to be fare?

Scanning the internet, there is one site calling him a "dirt-bag" and the title is "The Wrath of Con" The photo at the top of the page is a picture of William Shatner from one of the Star Trek movies, not even of Grant. I think "picking" on the this guy is excessive. That is my point of view.

Very strange how every time we ask for another opinion Dayewalker or Q start posting. Fair, is laughable in this article akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

How is discussion from two editors who have been involved in this article for years "strange?" Dayewalker (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange that out of ALL the editors, the same chime in. Its also quick clear how much of a supporter of Wikipdia Randi is reading his website, as well as he solicits monthly donations from everyone. But just because Randi talks about Wiki and in high regard, it is not strange that none of the editors will let me rebut a word he says... and not strange at all that he says faith healers want donations and he does the same thing. I just wish I was there when he sees Christ before the judgment seat. Actually no, I don't need to be. I already know what will happen.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Like most Christians with friends and acquaintances who have not accepted the Lord into their hearts, I look with prayerful sorrow and dread to what their fate will be before the Throne; but that's mindbogglingly irrelevant to this article, Al. --Orange Mike | Talk

When Fox News sends Shep Smith to report live from Randi's eternal torment nailed to a burning tree in Hitler Forest, I'll fully support that being added to Randi's wikipage. Until then though, it's irrelevant. Dayewalker (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure looking at your comment what you think I wanted to be added to the article. I did not ask for comment and praise for Wiki to be added, nor did I ever ask for the fact that he solicits donations, as OrangeMike stated that are completely irrelevant. BUT what I did want to add was his POV as a statement of fact, not just something that W.V. Grant claims. I "personally" did not see any issue with this since on his wiki page he states it, I just wanted to add it after the [Randi] link because many do not follow each and every link in an article. If this would cause the reader to be bias, well then in that person's mind he is. If the link was followed the same information was available. So personal like The Amazing Randi (an Atheist) ... does not seem wrong. But hey just my POV. If it was not stated in his wiki article maybe I would agree but the way it is. I disagree with your statement. POV makes all the difference in the world, knowing where someone is "coming from" with a statement. Happens in court when the judge determines your POV so I did not see an issue with the reader not knowing Randi's POV and I am 100 sure Randi would not care since he stated his POV.

Anyway, that's my POV... akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Potters House

For the record, This was not sold to TD Jakes it was 'given' to him, by W/V/ Grant. Jakes purchased other buildings etc but not this builing. Although once again I cannot find a reference.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The verb transferred should cover both a sale and a gift, whichever it was. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

POSITIVE POINTS STILL NOT INCLUDED

The feed Dalas and other things that this man has done are still not included, So there is no neutal point of view,\.

173.161.219.209 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Marriages

Mr. Grant's wife passed away in October 2020. I added this edit. I also want to state that Brenda was Mr. Grant's 3rd wife. His first 2 wives are not mentioned, which is puzzling to me? His children consist of one biological child, Misty, and the 2 grown men are his stepchildren (Brenda was married to an Anderson). Just some minor points that needed added. I am just confused why his first 2 wives were never mentioned (Misty's biological mother is NOT Brenda). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.106.133 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)