Talk:Victor Paul Wierwille

message: I am the copyright holder for the page in qustion.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.147.192 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I will remove the NPOV stub in 48 hours unless someone objects. Deckiller 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removal 

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 15:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: someone went through the article and prefixed "Dr." to every instance of Wierwille's name.  This is contrary to Wikipedia's naming conventions.  If it were established that he did in fact have a doctorate from an accredited institution, then we could note that, but we still don't put "Dr." in front of every instance of a person's name. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agreeTen of Swords 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. 

message: One line of this article states that "Wierwille's most famous book was Jesus Christ is Not God"
I don't know if there is anyway to every prove it was his most "famous" book. I think it was the one that might have shocked say people on the bus while you are reading it etc. But, that is just my opinion. Wierwille himself was proud of his work in Receiving The Holy Spirit Today and many Way believers talked about it being a "landmark" book yet that is not a NPOV unless someone outside of the way says so..or so I think. I just felt that (well 1st that this thing I am writing is probably too long for my stupid small point but...) somehow the word "famous" was misleading or just wrong.
:Then I'd suggest mentioning both books and describing them as his most "notable" books.  If we get a reliable source talking about which one is most "famous", we can use that, but in the meantime, we don't need to talk about fame, specifically.  Can you maybe dig up a reference to where Wierwille talked or wrote about being proud of Receiving in particular?  I don't think you need to wait until you have such a reference to add it to the article, necessarily, but having a reference will be good if any later reader wonders "hmmmm, why was this book held up for particular attention?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Didn't add the RHST book ref as I am not sure about it at all. Still, I feel that these new changes work. Thanks for the advice! Lsjzl 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me! -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most famous?

message: I see someone anynymous removed Wierwille's cause of death and marked that it was 
a "NP-POV edit."
However, his cause of death, as per his death certificate,
reads "metastatic melanoma of the liver"
and "ocular melanoma",
which, in plain English, means "cancer of the liver and eye."
Dr Winegarner, himself a member of TWI, signed the death certificate.
It is a matter of public record.
That which comprises an official government document,
complete with the seal of the Ohio Department of Health,
by definition is neutral in and of itself.
I can post a copy of this if anyone wishes. 
A "NP-POV" is actually HIDING the cause of his death.
Pete Snowball 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing his cause of death? 

message: I'd like to submit that the following are acceptable sources for quotation on Victor Paul
Wierwille, as they are each written and published BY The Way International, and by definition 
that organization has "vetted" each of them as accurate by their standards:
"The Way:Living in Love", by Elena Whiteside. It was written in the early 1970s as a booklong 
advertisement, and includes much of Victor Paul Wierwille's life as spoken by himself and his 
brother. 
"Born Again to Serve," by Mrs Dorothea Wierwille.  It was written in the late 1990s by his widow
and documents her own perspective-as edited by TWI-on its early days, covering, in fact, much the
same timespan as the previous book.
"VP and Me," by Loy Craig Martindale. It was written in the early-to-middle 1980s by VPW's 
hand-picked successor as a documentation of the "loving instruction" he received from VPW. Although it was probably meant to cement his own pedigree as President-as the man who stood closest to VPW- it does so by including many accounts of VPW as reported by LCM, who had an interesting interpretation of many of the things VPW said and did.
Do the posters here (those who actually participate in the discussions) agree that these are acceptable for the purpose of quotation?
Pete Snowball 13:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptable sources for quotation 

message: Check for my edit made today. I removed the Bible Bulliten page link. It really offers nothing to show why it should be a link to this page. "The Way denies the deity of Christ like all cults" isn't really what this article is about. (I know it says a lot more.. but not really related to this page.) One could argue that anything Way related is VPW related, but there is a reason we have seperate pages for seperate parts of this TWI entity. (Prob too much writing for the removal of one link but still...) Lsjzl 06:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link 

message: As much as I personally believe some of the stories of rape and/or sexual abuse that I have heard, none ever went to court, nor were charges ever filed, unlike his successor LCM. Therefore they should not be included in this article.Ten of Swords 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If substantial allegations were reported in reliable sources then we can mention them. We should be careful to indicate the disposition of the charges. -Will Beback · † · 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of sexual abuse 

message: I pulled "which was used by early Christians."  I'm a modern day Christian, and I still use Acts 9:2; it's just useless and ambiguous information.  Also, why isnt there anything about his plagiarism on this article?  It is factual and seems more at home here than on the TWI article. 65.123.80.28 19:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't really anonymous changes, but I don't know where else to put them.  I'm not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's system of edit and discuss.  Anyway, I removed abbreviations for The Way International and added the full name to avoid confusion for people unfamiliar with the organization.  Also, I quoted the specific biblical verses to show where Victor Paul Wierwille derived the organization's name (please excuse and adjust any poor quotation formatting). JoeCool03 21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think the addition of the verse is a little superfluous without further explanation; people could just look up the verse without it being here (not that i'm concerned with conserving wikipedia's bandwidth).  Do we have any documentation on WHY he chose that verse?  Why it isn't John 14:6 or some other verse that uses the word "way"?  It could also be that wikipedia would not be the place for such things like justification of doctrine.  I'll just proofread but leave the changed info for now.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 07:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should remove the verse. This article isn't about TWI so we shouldn't dwell on details about it like how it got its name. Since we don't say why this verse is meaningful to Wierville it's just distracting trivia.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Changes 

message: Is the link for Pike's Peak a link to a successor organization to the one Wierwille recieved his "doctorate" from? It doesn't appear to be the same organization.21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pikes Peak 

message: I removed the link "waybeliever" added to this and another entry. "waybeliever" seems to be under the impression that you can say ANYTHING and it's fine to include or link to a Wikipedia page. However, HIS page (and it's a personal page) falls short of the guidelines in several areas. The following are all direct quotes from Wikipedia's guidelines on what to avoid, and illustrate how this link falls short:
Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:
1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining 
terms, coining new words, et cetera. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your
results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online 
sites, and Wikipeia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge.
Citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not 
merely the editor's opinion.
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook)
Advertising and conflicts of interest It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent — even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
Now, the link itself... The editor called it an "Official Way" site- which is FRAUD. TWI has no connection to that MySpace page whatsoever. The editor claimed it was of "historical" value-but its content entirely consists of an advertisement for another organization composed of ex-TWI members. The site itself claims that there's "results" of some sort of "research", but gives no indication of actual research, as if they made up the "research" and the "results" completely and just continued with their advertisement.
Rather than just consider all of cyberspace a matter of advertising and talking AT people, some editors should consider the idea of DIALOGUE- a two-way process of communication where ideas are EXCHANGED. That is more in keeping with what Wikipedia is about- not making up claims, disguising advertisements, then claiming they're "official" sites for groups they're not even about.
Pete Snowball (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limits to External Links 

message: This article definitely needs a section on controversy. There are clearly a variety of views on Weirwille (the Parcast podcast show Cults is currently doing two episodes on Wierwille as a cult leader!), both from within and from without his own church, and Christianity in general. An article that leaves out a report of the existence of that controversy is seriously lacking, and flawed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artekka4 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy