Talk:Donald Lee Stewart

Metropolitan90's edits

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

POV/Religiously biased

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

POV/Marketing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Stewart Green Prayer Cloth

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

Developing a consensus for the article and correcting mistakes

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

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

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

+ I don’t see the relevance of the statement that, “The Trinity Foundation and Inside Edition investigated Stewart's wealth and as he solicited funds from supporters.”

++ WP-V:This statement isn’t referenced. There is no link to a legitimate news organization manuscript of any Inside Edition program on Stewart and the Trinity Foundation to check WP-V.

++ “What Wikipedia is not.” However, this article’s criticism is built primarily from the Trinity Foundation’s critical web site. Much of the article as it currently stands is lifted word for word from that site, making it basically a second web page for the Trinity Foundation. The Trinity Foundation also puts itself in as many Wikipedia articles as it can, in an apparent attempt to create links that help boost its web page’s rank on Google. When Wikipedia defines itself, “What Wikipedia is not.” The use of the Trinity Foundation in this manner is a violation of this policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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