Talk:W. V. Grant

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 21:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Verifiable Data Is not Available for claims in this Article 

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 15:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 18:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haiti Scandal 

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting my edits 

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 12:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Writing the article? 

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 13:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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!TeapotgeorgeTalk 14:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 14:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  It was properly referenced but "mis-information" as since the school exists but the name changed. 
akc9000 (talk • contribs • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 14:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Rules 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations needed . . .  

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 12:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. CheersTeapotgeorgeTalk 16:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  Did you yourself watch it? How do you know it really was aired?
akc9000 (talk • contribs • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 20:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions on Citations Needed 

message: -- 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor's Report with MRI results 

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Claim not to be a Faith Healer 

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this post. Which item are you objecting to now???? --Orange Mike  |  Talk 22:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Did you yourself watch it? How do you know it really was aired?
akc9000 (talk • contribs • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 20:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not add info to this article without cite's 

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 14:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 20:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 22:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  W.V. Grant Sr. 

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 19:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check it out. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the source and made some changes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks George makes more sense now, before it was confusing.
akc9000 (talk • contribs • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 22:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do these two statements contradict each other? (Concerning conviction) 

message: 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 • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 19:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The verb transferred should cover both a sale and a gift, whichever it was. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potters House 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POSITIVE POINTS STILL NOT INCLUDED 

message: 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)
thread_title: Marriages