Talk:Earl Paulk

message: "and spread the word of Adolf Hitler" doesn't seem apropos here without some backup.  Should there be a lock against anonymous changes on this page in light of the subject's current position in the news?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.57.3.195 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: Why was all the (largely correct) information about scandals and controversy (including the Mona Brewer case which was in the news as of last week) removed?  Seems like suppression rather than constructive editing. Scott Johnson 14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I partially reverted by copying the last version before the scandal references were taken out and pasted them after the Ministry section.  WAVY 10 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move.  I don't see a thing there that isn't factual, and there's no ad hominem or slant aspect to it. Scott Johnson 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scandal removal

message: Where did the Pearly part come from? WAVY 10 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl Pearly Paulk? 

message: Curious...
"Earl Paulk has been involved in multiple sex scandals, going all the way back to the early 60's. The most recent included his own granddaughter and another young girl."
I'm a little dubious about the second half of the edit, but I don't want to delete unless it can be proven; but it doesn't need to be at the end of the page.  WAVY 10 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember where I said I was a little dubious about the granddaughter being a victim of this predator? Well, I found a story carried on OneNewsNow.com (Christian news site run by the American Family Association) where his granddaughter testified that she was inappropriately touched by Paulk. I added that as soon as I found the article.  WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit 

message: Listing all those who did sign that statement as "proof" doesn't quite cut it - get rid of it and source a ref that sayd what this is suppose to be stating; we are an encyclopedia not a tabloid. All of the "interesting" items on this person's biography need to be removed if they are not balanced, neutral and preferably referenced. Benjiboi 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, at the VERY least, reformat into a list or SOMETHING! WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, reformatting bad content can only make it look better. The same effect can be had from stating "Paulk's signature was not amongst the X or so ministers". Benjiboi 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm hello? 

message: This church is presented as important in the lede, it should be noted something along the lines if it's Pentecostal, Christian, Baptist etc. (sorry religion not my specialty) as well as something that others would note as actaully being notable about the church, first, largest, fastest growing etc. Benjiboi 06:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pentecostal.  WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Charismatic and pentecostal.  Paulk used to head the United Communion of Charismatic Churches or somesuch, before his fall from grace of sorts. Paulk's theology isn't quite like the usual charismatic nor the usual pentecostal, though.  Scott Johnson (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapel Hill Harvester Church 

message: This entire section needs reliable sources throughout. Per WP:Bio we should do no harm, if claims have been reported in reliable sources then we need to cite them. And per WP:RS exceptional claims need exceptional sources. We need to present this information neutrally and dispassionately and with references. Benjiboi 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section