Talk:Jimmy Swaggart

Reverts

I reverted this page to the last edit before 24.141.218.124 touched it. 24.141.218.124 has dumped extremely POV diatribes on the Wikipedia articles for several religious figures. Auric, you made a good attempt to drag it back towards NPOV, but the information simply isn't relevant and might be entirely incorrect. Brian Kendig 20:18, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article states, "In November 1991, he was stopped for speeding. In the car with him was another prostitute. Soon after, he was told to leave the church he pastored, but he did not do so. Swaggart kept his church and began preaching again years later. In 1995, Swaggart was again pulled over this time in California with a prostitute in the car." This information screams for citations. Can anyone provide any? If not, it probably should be taken out.

Possible misquote?

The entry for [Jimmy Swaggart] currently states that he called rival televangelists Jim Bakker "a cancer of the body of Christ". However, the entry for [Jim Bakker] says that Jerry Falwell described Bakker as "the greatest scab and cancer on the face of Christianity in two thousand years of church history".

Did both televangelists say the same thing, or did each of them use a seperate quote? This entries make this unclear.

The correct quotation stated by Reverend Swaggart of Jim Bakker is as follows: "He (Bakker) is a cancerous boil on the buttox of Christ." Later, when Reverend Swaggart was accused of diliances with prostitutes the most reverends Falwell & Robertson in a joint statement claimed that Reverend Swaggart was " a festering postule on the buttox of Christ."

Wraggling?

Not in any English dictionary I checked.

Fixed. ZsigE 02:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

This article is a bit shapeless, and the tone is not encyclopedic throughout, so I put a cleanup tag. I'm a recovering wikiholic, so I don't really have time to do it myself, and I'm not very familiar with the subject matter. --Slashme 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That man sure can play the piano!

Swaggart is a consummate piano player in the manner of a more sedate Jerry Lee Lewis, his cousin, and sings with skill equal to his playing. His "How Great Thou Art" must be heard by anyone who likes that type of music. Tobyw 14:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be some reference here to his musical ability/how he used it in services and albums. That was a big part of his appeal.

Criminal/fraudster?

Did the scandals ever end him up in court? There's no mention of any criminal convictions in the article, just scandals, so I'm going to remove the Fraudster and American criminals categories. Jammycakes 20:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Proportion?

I had reason to look at this article to try to find out something about Swaggart's actual ministry and the basis of his appeal. There is almost nothing there. Almost the entire article is about sex scandals etc. This may be gratifying in a way, but it really seems disproportionate. Metamagician3000 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he has completely rebuilt his ministry, and is now broadcasting over TV, radio, and internet. There is no mention of any of this in the article. It does not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Malcolmst 12:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am no fan of any public figure who decided he'd betray his wife and followers but not keeping his penis where it belongs, but this article roundly fails NPOV. All it really is is a section on controversies and criticisms; no real background, no history of accomplishments, no biography. Swaggart does have a autobiography, after all. A used copy is 25 cents. CyberAnth 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. This article, slightly longer than the snail darter entry, is a joke and obviously little more than a battleground for people with axes to grind on both sides. One very reliable and pretty darn balanced source from a disinterested party was the biography "Swaggart" written by Anne Rowe Seaman in 1999. I thought it was, actually, one of the best biographies of a living person I'd read in years. It has nearly 40 pages of sourced notes in the back. I would start drawing from that but I won't waste my time if it's going to be blanked the minute I put it up. If so, the reverters should start cleaning house on every biography on WP, because very, very few have the ironclad, laboratory-tested, signs-and-fires-from-heaven verifiability that these people seem to want. What they really want, of course, is something much more subjective than they'll ever admit. And their notability test is purely subjective, too. At the height of his fame, Swaggart had hundreds of thousands of followers in dozens of countries. Thanks for denying the average web user a few innocuous facts (parents names, location of first pastorate, name of the bible college he started and still runs, etc.) to make your point. Make it somewhere else so others can actually make use of this article, okay? 12.206.73.113 04:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Lee Swaggert

Someone put in the middle name of LEE. Can someone verify this? Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see more in there indeed about what he is doing now, what his Ministry is and what types of souls are responding to the call, in what numbers and compared to what numbers earlier. Otherwise, this looks like ad hominem criticism, lacking balance or context, so something should certainly be added. But his most lasting contribution to society may truly be his serial sex scandals in between tearful visits to pulpit, and we can't take that away from the Reverend either, IMHO. 57.67.161.196 11:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

As stated in my 25 September 2006 response to "Proportion" I do not believe this article is from an NPOV perspective. As such, I have flagged the article with an NPOV-check. I believe there is much missing information about the current state of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, and as stated by Metamagician3000 in "Proportion", the article is almost entirely about sex scandals from almost 20 years ago. Help to add relevant information to bring this back to an NPOV perspective is necessary, and would be greatly appreciated. Malcolmst 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I placed a reference to the prostitute controversy in the introductory paragraph... seems that is what he's known for, and not too many readers will likely care about his current viewership.--71.207.224.186 (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that people keep trying to remove the prostitute controversy from the summary as if they are trying to hide it. This article definitely needs an NPOV check and more citations.

Somebody should mention his failed tv comeback...

I didn't get the watch his failed comeback to televangism on TBN, but I think it's worth mentioning by someone who knows more about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamstillhiro1112 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Wa original show aired "live"?

I noticed this paragraph about the scandal, and it made me wonder how his original program was recorded.

"The story broke on February 20, 1988, four months after Swaggart had promised to confess his sin. On February 21, 1988, on his television show taped in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Swaggart tearfully confessed that he was guilty of an unspecified sin and made comparisons to himself and King David."

It either seems like the show could have been taped live, or that Swaggart knew it was about to come crashing down.

WAVY 10 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup? NPOV? How about WP:BLP!

Look, I am no fan at all of any public figure who decided he'd betray his wife and followers by not keeping his penis where it belongs, but this article roundly fails not just NPOV but WP:BLP. All it really is is a section on controversies and criticisms; no real background; no history of accomplishments; no biography. Swaggart does have a autobiography, after all. A used copy is 25 cents. If you are interested in writing a good encyclopedia article on Swaggart, a living person, you might buy it and read it. I am sorry, but how can editors even so much as have the gall to write an article about a living person, not having read and incorporated his or her own autobiography into the article about the person! Swaggart has also been discussed in Christian and secular academic journals and a plethora of books that studied his "fall". And Swaggart makes or made $150-million, as was indicated in the Salary entry in his info box? Can't you tell the difference between an organization's total budget and the salary of its head? This article as it stands is purely the work of hacks, not responsible encyclopedia authors. I have removed all content not in keeping with WP policies, see edit history - I have stubbed the article per WP:BLP. DO NOT replace it until there is substantial and extended material in this article to make a well-balanced, truly encyclopedic article that fully meets each point of WP:BLP and every other WP policy. If you don't like this, there is always Uncyclopedia just down the road. CyberAnth 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted my stubbing of this article. Please refer to WP:BLP. Some excerpts:

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

CyberAnth 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the scale of the blanking is far moe than what would be required to acheive your stated goal, and I can only assume censorship is your goal. Artw 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. An article per WP:BLP is the goal. I placed mention of the scandal into the stub. I point you again to the two excerpts above. Good coverage of the scandal should most certainly be in this article. But it must be "in a manner that does not overwhelm the article". No sane evaluation would say that 90% or so of a person's biography should be related to a person's public scandals that occurred over a few years of the person's 70 total years. But that is how the article was before I subbed it. We might as well make Bill Clinton 90% or so about the Lewinski scandal. "While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed". CyberAnth 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should apply this interesting take on that policy to the Charles Manson article. Say 10 line of being a bad folk singer and freind of the beach boys to every one regarding mass murde, would that be about right? ArtW 03:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges. As the Manson article notes, he "has spent most of his adult life in prison". Even given that, the Manson article is far, far more balanced than this one was before I stubbed it. Swaggart's discography has not even been covered while it is in the Manson article. And again, we are talking people who are Apples and Oranges here. Whatever anyone may think of Swaggart, he just ain't no Manson. Not even close. CyberAnth 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Manson is mainly known for his murders, in the same way that Swaggart is mainly known for his affairs with prostitutes, and the article should reflect that. He's spent the past twenty years in one scandal or another. If you feel that it is unfair than other aspects are not covered maybe you should change it to reflect that. I'm reverting the article. If you have a sufficient problem with some portions of the article of a real nature, such as you feel them to be untrue (or more likely, you kwish to quibble over sources), perhaps you should reblank them, but blanking the majority of the article because you'd prefer he wasn't known for his affairs is just silly Artw 05:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to give things a re-read, above. None of this has to do with my preference and it should not have to do with yours as well. It has to do with WP:BLP. You should stop trying to divine my motives, acting on what you think they are and assuming bad faith, and read the policies. As well, your statement that "He's spent the past twenty years in one scandal or another" is overstatement. He is 71, irrespective, and a BIO should be just that, a BIO, not a lopsided thing focusing almost in totality on controversies. Again, I point you to the policies. Also, I point you to his autobiography and the journal articles I mentioned. There is also considerable Spanish language materials available from during the time his organization poured multiple millions into the region to open schools and orphanages for children whose parents were killed during Cold War era conflicts. The material is there if one wishes to write a responsible biography in keeping with WP:BIO. As it stands, this article does not meet it, except in its version as a stub. Try {{Biography}} for an example of how a biography should look, replacing 1.5 Death and afterward with Downfall and afterward. If you are not willing to write a responsible bio, then leave the stub alone for another who might. CyberAnth 05:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking this to Incidents Artw 06:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Incident moved here CyberAnth 08:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of points. One, CyberAnth, please don't comment out material that you want removed. Just remove it. Commenting it out makes it hard to work out what's going on and it's not the done thing. Two, Artw, this article was horrendously unbalanced, chockful of completely unsourced mudslinging. I'm no fan of the likes of Swaggart but he'll have fair treatment here. We need sources for everything. And not your favourite website. Proper sources. Grace Note 06:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, let's bear in mind that people who have made the news for negative reasons get a great deal written about those negative things, and not so often a lot about anything positive. This can incline us to write articles that are just long slagfests. Let's try to avoid that. Controversy, yes, because he is known for it; criticism but not mudslinging; and let's try to be objective about what is actually important. Grace Note 06:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-stubbing

I re-stubbed this article. Note the following from WP:BLP:

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Just because you can cite material for a slagfest does not mean this gets around NPOV requirements. I point you again to the comments above on the differences between a biography and a slaagfest. Also bear in mind that the entire talk page history of this article has cited NPOV problems. NOTE: A WP:NPOV problem is a WP:BLP problem. The more extensive material on controversies can be reintroduced once a proper bio is written. CyberAnth 04:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no POV problems with a simple statement of events, complete with cites. Artw 04:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Which events? See WP:Undue weight. Is this a biography entitled "Jimmy Swaggart" or an article titled "Controversies of Jimmy Swaggart"? One would think the latter before I re-stubbed it. To meet BLP criteria, NPOV must be met strictly. You might give some attention to the entire talk page history here that have pointed out this article's problem in this regard:

• "Almost the entire article is about sex scandals etc. This may be gratifying in a way, but it really seems disproportionate." Metamagician3000 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• "It does not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy." Malcolmst 12:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• "The tone is not encyclopedic". Slashme 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• "In...response to 'Proportion' I do not believe this article is from an NPOV perspective... the article is almost entirely about sex scandals from almost 20 years ago." Malcolmst 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You getting the hint here? From four (see above), now five (me), now six (Grace Note), different users here?

I have already described how to make this a real biography. It is just above. Write one, and the more extensive material on controversies can be reintroduced once a real biography article is written. The man's been alive 71 years and has published views on hundreds of notable things.

Think of it this way: Say you were alive for 30 years. During 1/4 of those years, you flubbed up bad, but during 1/3 of your years you did very well. Should your bio cover your whole life in balance, or just your flub years? How would you feel if your bio were a slagfast for your bad years?

To quote Grace Note above, "I'm no fan of the likes of Swaggart but he'll have fair treatment here." Would you want fair treatment here, too?

Note: undue weight is a potential cause for libel. That is why articles which fail WP:NPOV fail WP:BLP.

CyberAnth 04:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight talks about "viewpoints". As in "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."... it then goes on to talk about various viewpoints such as the view that the Earth is flat, and mentions that extreme minority viewpoint shsould no be covered. Now... what viepoint is it you feel is not represented here? The viewpoint that the various cited incidents involving Jimmy Swaggart did not occur? I'm sorry, thats a very extreme minority viewpoint indeed.

As for "undue weight is a potential cause for libel." - how on earth could that possibly apply here?

You seem to feel that the article is unbalanced because some notable aspects of Jimmy Swaggarts life have not been covered - what exactly are they? Or are we to play guessing games with you? Artw 05:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And a further quote from WP:NPOV: We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

Where do you see a violation of this policy? Artw 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already clearly described answers to all your questions. For further things to read that would enable a fair bio, see this. Swaggart himself has published extensive viewpoints of himself, as have others published about him. CyberAnth 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could repeat the part of the conversation where you tell me which of the portions of the page you are removing are not "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."? Is the answer "none of them"? Artw 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just read the arguments. It is all very clear. CyberAnth 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not very clear to me at all. Are any portions of the 05:53, 27 January 2007 version of the article not "pieces of information about which there is no serious dispute"? If your answer is "No" then how is WP:NPOV not met? If WP:NPOV is met then what grounds are you stubbing the article on? You've mentioned it could be better and more complete as an article -are you stubing it on those grounds? Yes or no answers without evasion would be appreciated Artw 06:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The sum total of WP:NPOV as relates to WP:BLP concerns is not satisfied by simple adherence to WP:CITE. You seem to think they are as indicated by your non-removal of <!-- Please cite any new material before adding it, as this subject is likely to be highly controversial. See WP:BLP and WP:CITE for more information. --> , which someone inserted into the article after you de-stubbed it and continued to de-stub it. CyberAnth 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Either it meets WP:NPOV or it doesn't - please explain how it fails WP:NPOV, given that it consists entirely of "pieces of information about which there is no serious dispute." backed by cites. Artw 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained it and will not re-write things, making this harder for others to come along and follow the flow. My view is summarized in my post just above this one. And in "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Perhaps you missed the point about Swaggart having published extensive viewpoints of himself (see for starters his publications list and autobiography) - covering from his childhood to the recent present - including writing a whole book about the controversies (also this one). If you do not have a mind to do the studying required to write a responsible, fair biography of this living person, fine. Just leave it stubbed until someone else comes along who is. CyberAnth 06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We're talking policies here, not opinions. To be precise we're talking about the policies that you are using to justify your stubbing of the 05:53, 27 January 2007 version of the article - WP:NPOV and by extension of that WP:BLP, as well as WP:Undue weight. Your opinion that a better biograhy could be written and that Jimmy Swaggarts autobiography would be a starting point is irrelevant to those policies, unless the autobiography contradicted anything in the article. I don't have a copy, so I have no way of knowing, and I see no reason to assume that it does.

Your previous answer - saying that cites alone arn't enough to meet WP:NPOV, is misleading. It meets WP:V due to the cites, it meets WP:NPOV because it consists of "pieces of information about which there is no serious dispute". You've yet to identify anything in the article as something that anyone would dispute.

WP:Undue weight deals with viewpoints and opinions. Again, the article consists of "pieces of information about which there is no serious dispute" - not viewpoints, unless you can demonstrate anyone holds the a point of view that the facts in the article are wrong. Does Swaggart? If so where? We cannot just assume he does, we need verified sources.

So... If WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight are met then where is the WP:BLP violation?

So let me ask, which policy are you reverting the article under? And if you are not verting it under any policy then what justification do you have? Artw 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, refer to everything above starting at Talk:Jimmy_Swaggart#Cleanup.3F_NPOV.3F_How_about_WP:BLP.21. The reasons are all clearly stated. Perhaps you just do not want to hear them. CyberAnth 07:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly stating you have answered the poinst I've raised is not the same as answering them. At this point do you have anything left but evasion and repeated assertation? and again where is the NPOV violation. SHOW ME THE BODY. Or are you concedeing that there is no NPOV violation? Artw 07:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly refusing to re-answer questions already answered is not the same as not answering them. It is not re-answering them. Are you conceding you are POV pushing? CyberAnth 07:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WHAT POV? Artw 07:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That your version of the article - the non-stubbed article - fully meets WP:BLP and all policies appertaining. CyberAnth 08:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll revert it, you tell me what policy it's breaking. I think we've established it isn't WP:NPOV or WP:Undue weight by the simple method of actually reading them. Artw 08:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. You don't actually have a reason. Very interesting. Artw 08:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The interesting thing is you appear to refuse to see the clearly given reasons. CyberAnth 08:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen them, I've read the relevant polices, and your reasons don;t match the policies. I've asked you about this and you've refused to answer. And then you've claimed that you've already answered. As I see it basically you're a liar Artw 08:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I take that back - it's entirely posible that in the heat of the moment you've simply failed to read my comments on your interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight. Better to assume hotheadedness than shadyness. Howabout we make things nice and clear and you answer my simple yes or no question: Given the portions of WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight I've quoted do you still consider them to be reasons for reverting the article? Artw 08:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hey. Let's cool it down. Once we get to the stage of namecalling, we're not really having a productive discussion. I entirely agree with CyberAnth here. This article should not be expanded solely with material that is negative. Buy the guy's autobio, do some research, write a proper article. If you're not willing to do those things but simply want to add all the shit things you can about him, you're going to meet resistance. No one is trying to whitewash this guy. But neither is it right to make his article all about the controversies about him. Grace Note 08:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I have to ask you the same question as I asked CyberAnth - is there a WP:NPOV or a WP:Undue weight issue with the 05:53, 27 January 2007 version of the article? If so where? And if there isn't why is WP:BLP being invoked? Artw 08:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You really need ot cool it with the reverts. What the hell was that lats one about? Other than "people other than CyberAnth have edited the article"?

Also I really would like your input on where these supposed WP:NPOV bans are occuring.

BTW, it seems that CyberAnth has recently been blocked for abusing Wikipedia policies. I would contend that what we have here is a similar abuse of policy. Artw 06:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was deemed that I was blocked by a person abusing WP policies. CyberAnth 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not read the entire discussion above, but I will say that I accessed the Wikipedia article looking for biographical information on Jimmy Swaggart, and found very little information -- only extensive references to the scandals, about which I was already aware, having read the newspapers at the time they happened. I am a Catholic Christian, and as such not particularly favorable towards Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, but I would expect to see some normal biographical information balancing out the scandal references. This man had a large successful ministry for many years before the scandals occurred, and there is very little information on it. C. Mac Kirnan, 28 January 2007.

"Revelation of the Cross"

Anyone got a short explanation of what is meant by that (preferably with cite)? I'm pretty sure it isn't the Revelation of the Cross, as linked. Artw 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about this article (taking from article, mistakenly placed by noob)

There's nothing neutral about this page.

While doing some research I stumbled upon this Wikipedia page. I must say that Jimmy Swaggart is an amateur hypocrite compared to some of the contributors on this page. Everybody over 10 years old knows that Swaggart was a jerk more than once years ago but this page is positive proof that at this Wikipedia website, credability is a farce and falsely advertises itself for being legitimate resource material. The dullest light bulb in the pack would be able to see the lack of objectivity in this article. Does this site have an editor?

<redacted>

04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)pappillon45

It's a pity this guy didn't put his efforts into something usuable for the article. I'll put a sentence or two in the media section noting that Swaggart has produced a number of Gospel albulms - It would be nice to get a cite for it though, and moire concrete information in general ("at least 38" doesn't really work for me). A link to a full discography would be excellent. I did a some casual Googling on this and didn't come up with much. Artw

Wow, cutting and pasting that song list, song description and all, was a bad idea. The real problem with this page isn't NPOV. From what I see there are negative things, but they seem to be written in a neutral way. And it's all in the right place. You simply can't delete things cause they don't reflect well on someone. Otherwise the hitler articles would have to leave off the haulocast thing, and the clinton article would have to leave off Monica Lewinski. Anyhow, it's hard to find usable background info on Jimmy. Even Charisma person who made the last topic didn't have anything to add to the article. I searched Jimmy Swaggarts article and he didn't bother posting background info. And a quick google search didn't give me much of anything either otherwise i would of loved to add stuff myself.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a little frustrating that every so often we get someone complaining that there's all this great stuff on Swaggart we're not using, and that the article concentrates on the scandal and very little else, but then they add nothing themselves. Weirdly the last two people to do that were an anonymous IP thats barely been used and a user who apparently signed up, made that comment and has done nothing since. Artw 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they've read the record here and are contemplating legal action instead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.81.208 (talk • contribs)

I hope that that is speculation and not a legal threat. JoshuaZ 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

More likely a troll. Artw 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, but I tried looking for stuff on Swaggart and didn't find anything immediately. And I guess the problem with Swaggart being a religious figure is that his page can't be filled with boasting, so it won't tell his history and stuff. I try to add to wikipedia when I can.--Iamstillhiro1112 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It remains true though that you simply cannot have an article that harps on about scandals. Mention them and move on. It is also not "balancing" the article to include screeds about what his ministry does (not about him) or scurrilous "trivia" (not about him either).

My view on biographies is that we should not present anything that the person themselves would not consider acceptable. They might not like that it mentions a scandal, but they would not disagree that it's presented fairly. That's a minimum dictate of human decency. Grace Note 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

Unsurprisingly I disagree.

Big chunks of "Jimmy Swaggart Ministries" obviously needed culling. Possibly there could be an article in that, but it would be hard to avoid just regurgitating chunks of the website.

Jimmy Swaggart undoubtedly has a position in pop culture that is/was represented by the trivia section, but it was largely bumf.

But your other edits... Hmm. Sorry. No. That's not "balance" or "decency", that's Politely pretending some stuff that undeniably did happen didn't, apparently for the sole intent of sparing the guys blushes.

This is not the article it was when CyberAnth was blanking it - A lot of effort has been put into it to ensure that it isn't, and not just in the citing and fact checking of negative material - and I simply don't think WP:BLP can be used as a big stick to beat it into submission again. I'd definitely say that the article could do with more on Swaggart outside of the scandals: His folk singing career in particular could be expanded upon (and efforts have been made to find subject matter experts on that) however the guy has been involved in multiple scandals, and cited factual references to that in a neutral tone are an important part of the article. To pretend otherwise, or just include a single "representative" scandal would be a lie by omission. I believe the way these documented matters’ of public record have been dealt with are fair and I am replacing those portions of the article. Artw 04:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. You are not going to turn this article into a slagfest. The article as I have left it mentions a scandal. You do not need to write a book about it. Remember the key to a biography. The person it's about need not like it (and it need not be what they would write themselves) but they must be able to agree that it is fair. That's an absolute minimum requirement. I simply do not care whether you agree with that, Artw, because it's the minimum standard here, and if you don't like it, you can go write a blog about Swaggart. Grace Note 06:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• What can I say? I stongly disagree and think your definition of "fair" leans far too heavily towards whitewashing the guy. They are also in excess of anything recommeneded by the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Artw 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Constructing this biography

Let's do this properly. Both pros and antis, if you can be labelled that, present in this section the material you would like to include. Give a rationale for its inclusion and sources for every piece of it. We can then discuss it rationally and build a decent biography. Artw, I don't want to exclude the truth about Swaggart but I want a fair discussion of a whole life, not a focus on the bad. Grace Note 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's going to pretty hard persuading people to invest the time in writing the article in the proper tone and to properly cite everything if you're just going to arbitarily delete their efforts according to your internal "fairness" meter. Artw 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think the most you should of done to that last revision was rewrite what you think is POV, not just delete everything. The article is pathetic lengthwise, considering there is info that could go into it to expand on the one or two line sentence paragraphs people are fighting to keep. We finally got someone who put the effort to expand the article who seemed to have a bit of understanding of his history. Notice that they added to the article, not just deleted what they hated.--Iamstillhiro1112 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think theres a lot that's admirable about that version, but as you can see this is a sensitive article. We're basically going to need a cite for every statement or it'll just end up getting gutted again. Artw 23:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also I got the impression that User:Kelly A. Siebecke was transcribing stuff from the version of he article before it got blanked. If that's not the case then apologies - actually lookign at a dif I think I'm probably wrong about that. I still think we need more cites to get that version in though, and we need to be very carefull about neutral tone etc... I can't recommenedd reading through WP:BLP and WP:NPOV enough, basically to get a sense of the arguments that will be brought to bear against any expanded version of the article. though I disagree about his arguments for bowlderising the article I think GraceNote is basically acting in good faith, there are however other editors out there who will cease any opportunity to tear it to shreds. Artw 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Artw, that is precisely what I want to avoid. I am aiming at a stable version of the article that would be acceptable to anyone reasonable reading it. Iamstillhiro11112, I am simply going to remove the stuff about the scandals until they are compliant with my statement above. It has nothing to do with my "internal fairness meter" because I'm sure that Artw is perfectly aware of what's reasonable, and equally aware that what is being presented isn't. Grace Note 01:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But your not removing everything about the scandal, your removing EVERYTHING.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I'm tempted to, but actually I haven't. Grace Note 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dudette, by everything, I mean, you remove every addition to the article. Even ones that likely wouldn't be challanged by anyone. You are actually removing cited material now.--Iamstillhiro1112 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal

I had no idea there had been so much controversy about the article until I took the time to rework it and THEN read the discussion on it. Personally, I can't believe that the article prior to my changes would have been acceptable to anyone committed to keeping a NPOV. Honestly, when I read it as it was BEFORE my changes, I surmised that it had likely been edited by someone in Swaggart's camp because it was so whitewashed and so non-NPOV.

Look, I'm a Christian (an ordained minister, in fact) and I don't see any reason why the article can't give the scandal details as they were presented in the reworked version. ESPECIALLY since the guy basically thumbed his nose at his denomination's leadership and at the Christian community as a whole. Nothing I wrote was untrue, and nothing I wrote was over-the-top. Additionally, I actually EXPANDED the article by providing background information about Swaggart that previously was left out. I reworked it from reliable internet sources, a Swaggart biography, and what I already knew about the guy - it never would have even occur to me to repost a cut-and-paste of other deleted versions.

Make sure you post those sources then so we can get the article expanded a little bit. I lol'd about it looking like it was from Jimmys camp tho, from reading the article I had more of a sense that the article was biased against him.--Iamstillhiro1112 00:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not aiming at a "whitewash". But the alternative is not an article focused on his misdoings. We should be aiming at presenting a view of the man in the round. And yes, that should be something acceptable to "Swaggart's camp". That is the central point of WP:NPOV, which I direct you to read. Also read WP:BLP so that you have a better idea of what biographies here should look like. Grace Note 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not aiming at a "whitewash".

Then why tone down the article to such a point that the truth is obscured?

But the alternative is not an article focused on his misdoings.

It wasn't focused on his misdoings - his misdoings, however, are what made him a name outside of Christendom. People should be allowed to read a factual, unbiased encyclopedic short-story about that which made him known. You can't tell Swaggart's story without telling in-depth about the last 20 years of his life.

We should be aiming at presenting a view of the man in the round.

Can that happen without you throwing a temper-tantrum, Grace Note? It would seem not.

And yes, that should be something acceptable to "Swaggart's camp". That is the central point of WP:NPOV, which I direct you to read.

So, in essence, you are saying that Wikipedia bios should only be written to make the subject and subject's fans happy? Ridiculous. I thought the goal of Wikipedia was to be an online encyclopedia, not a fan-site.

Also read WP:BLP so that you have a better idea of what biographies here should look like.

Mmmm...if it says that Wikipedia biographies should look like amateurish garbage (like the now reverted version of the Swaggart article again looks), then it's no wonder Wikipedia is still generally thought of as resource joke. Kelly A. Siebecke 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Having reviewed that version of the article (sorry for giving it short shrift earlier) I think it's pretty good and we should go to it as soon as we can site the folling paragraphs, and if the biography allows us to to that we're doing good.

Jimmy Swaggart's parents, Sun and Minnie Belle, became Pentecostal evangelists in 1943 while Jimmy began to preach on street corners and lead congregations in singing at age nine. In 1952, at age twenty-three, he married Frances Anderson; together they had one son, Donnie. Swaggart became a full-time travelling preacher in 1958 and began to record gospel albums in 1960, gaining exposure on Christian-themed radio stations. At this time, Swaggart was developing a substantial following throughout the south at revival meetings. By 1969, his newly launched radio program, “The Camp Meeting Hour,” was eventually aired over numerous Bible-Belt radio stations. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Four days later on a New Orleans morning news show, Murprhee stated that while Swaggart was a regular customer, they had never engaged in intercourse. According to Murphree, Swaggart preferred watching the prostitute undress while he would masturbate. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Against the ruling of the governing body of the Assemblies of God, Swaggart returned to his television pulpit long before his three-month suspension expired. He stated, "If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell." Believing that Swaggart was not genuinely repentant in not submitting to their authority, the Assemblies of God immediately defrocked Swaggart, removing his credentials and ministerial license. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

This time, rather than tearfully confessing to his congregation, Swaggart told his flock that "The Lord told me it's flat none of your business." His son Donnie then announced to the stunned audience that his father would be temporarily stepping down as head of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries for "a time of healing and counseling." ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Following the scandals, Swaggart's ministry had been reduced by 85% as of 1995. While his ministry's annual revenue shrunk, his annual salary was still over $350,000 at that time. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

As I mentioned before if you need help getting references into the correct format I can help you with that - I realise that it's fiddly and kind of a pain. And don;t worry about using the same source for multiple cites, that's perfectly acceptable.

In addition we already have some cites for Print and recorded media which should be re-inserted.

Don't worry about satisfying Grace Note - I doubt it's possible, and his interpretation of NPOV is bizarre. Lets get the article in good shape and then if he persists in reverting it we'll take this to some form of arbitration. Artw 05:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a chance. You are not writing one paragraph on who he is and about a dozen on one scandal. Think again. The article is about the man in the round, not about the thing that you think is most important about him. Grace Note 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"You are not writing one paragraph on who he is", and how is this article gonna improve if you won't "allow" one paragraph to be added to it?--Iamstillhiro1112 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gracenote, please back off. You do not own the article. Artw 16:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also on an point of factual accuracy it is not "one" scandal. Hence my irritation at you repeatedly cutting back the article to a mention of a single scandal, in itself a lie by omission. Perhaps you should do a little more research on the subject yourself. Artw

Here's the other deal...

Artw, here's how I feel about this article:

I am not going to take the time to edit and add to this article (as I did last week) only to have it sabotaged by someone who obviously has the feeling that they "own" the article. On the web, be it Usenet, Wikipedia, or any other entity that allows the average public to contribute, self-perceived kings and kingdoms abound. Wikipedia, it is now evident, is not excluded in this perception. If grace note wants to have rule over the Jimmy Swaggart article, then I'm not going be the one to try and buck that tiger. My intent in editing this article was to try and augment and balance out the article and grace note threw a tantrum. I'm not interested in adults throwing childish tantrums, therefore, I'm no longer interested in editing this article. If grace note decides to leave this article alone and move on to claim ownership over another article, then I might consider working on it again. Until then, I've got better things to do.

As a side note: One thing I have noticed in grace note's contribution history on Wikipedia is that (as far as I can see) he has never contributed anything constructive to Wikipedia; only criticism and policing. Why? Some people just have serious control issues, I suppose.

Ta-ta and happy editing! Kelly A. Siebecke 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You just need to add some resources, then she won't have the justification to remove everything. I think alot of it deserves to stay, but I don't feel like finding the resources for you. And yes, I see Grace Note has been given warnings and such for deleting stuff she don't want to see.--Iamstillhiro1112 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Never in my life have I seen so many negative and biased opinions on any one person. Most of the authors appear to have a personal axe to grind. I see almost no objective and unbiased presentation on Swaggart's life and ministry. Everyone here seems to think that Jimmy Swaggart's life and ministry are over - yet any honest observation of the current facts clearly prove otherwise. Anyone's comments can be taken out of text and context to twist them into something that they were never intended to be - and many people here are guilty of doing that. Where is the objectivity? Where is the unbiased reporting? Why has no one covered Swaggart's life and ministry since 1991 to show the good that God has done through his life and his ministry? This forum reeks of the smell of garbage and rancid gossip.

Well, Wikipedia certainly is more of a tabloid than a serious encyclopedia. It has to be, because most of the good people with professional lives and real expertise are driven away by the rank-and-file amateurs here that run in packs, like Lord of the Flies. You can see my past efforts here to bring responsibility to this article. But forget it. What I regrettably believe is that the best thing that can happen for Wikipedia is that some group of parties, subjects of biographies, sue the project. That's the only thng that will speak loud enough to bring systemic and fundamental change. Meanwhile, allow me to suggest Citizendium. --CyberAnth 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In order to sue wikipedia over thjsi article, wouldn't some element of it have to be untrue? Which element specifically do you see as being untrue? Artw 03:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(Citizendium, BTW, has no Jimmy Swaggart article. Artw 03:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

You are right that Citizendium has no article on JS. However, you can be sure of two things: 1) if they did, editors would ensure it be a balanced, fair article; and, 2) if you persisted in making it not so, constables would have long ago banned you, unlike what has happened here. ---CyberAnth 05:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, noone will add anything to the non-headline making sections, and provide sources. If it's unbalanced it's cause there isn't anyone willing to add positive facts about the mans history to the article.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Whether Swaggart (or any other person) can or cannot sue the Wikipedia for disputed content is irrelevant to our responsibilities as editors. Leave that up to the lawyers to sort out. The fact is, "The Foundation and Jimbo Wales receive well-founded complaints about biographical content every day from people who are justifiably upset about inaccurate or unfair articles. This policy outlines the minimum standards our subjects can expect when we write about them, and when they complain about us." The requirements for writing and editing articles like Swaggart's are very stringent. Please see the Biographies of Living Persons policy for more information. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 03:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The solution is very simple. You stub the article. As you can see, folk here in the past would have none of that. CyberAnth 05:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I think yo're misrepresenting things slightly. The article DID get stubbed, and then the stub was expanded with new content with an emphasis on keeping it factual and finding sources for those facts. I think you're problem is that the facts didn't change. Artw 13:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

trivia

Is mentioned by Frank Zappa on the Intro to Stinkfoot on Make a Jazz noise here (live).

Swaggart and "Christian Rock"

I think it's well known that Swaggart openly attacked everything he deemed evil, but I was wondering about Swaggart's attacks on Larry Norman, Stryper (even though he pretty much converted them), and the Jesus Movement in general. I was wondering whether or not it should be in this article. I think it's notable enough to at least add a sentence or two about it, but rather than just add it myself (like the Wikidragon I am), I wanted to make sure others found it to be okay. IronCrow (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you add this I would ask that you add some good sources as well. Artw (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes I know. But I had to ask first because there seemed to be alot of fuss about things within the article, and I didn't want to get in the middle of it. IronCrow (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Added. Feel free to add/edit more. IronCrow (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Where's the criticism section for this ignorant hypocrite? 63.225.247.123 (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree with your statement, you gotta be civil. The criticism is pretty much the whole article, as that is pretty much one of the few things most notable about him (besides the fact that he had what I would call a cult following). IronCrow (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV TAG =

I've tagged this article for checking because I have very little knowledge of the subject and I don't feel confident in addressing the problems. The whole article seems to be completely out of balance, tilted towards over half the article on his scandals with prostitutes. If he became a full time preacher in 1958 as the article states, why is there so little information about the 30 years before his sex scandals? Surely he did something notable in all that time?

I think the whole article is badly written and doesn't explain why these sex scandles are notable or even interesting, except to show the conclusion of his ministry. Specific lines which are both uncited and are not written from a NPOV are: The song, which refers to Jimmy throughout as "Jimmy Sinner," ends with the repetitious line, "Miracle Man got busted," a fitting conclusion to the perceived hypocrisy that was Jimmy Swaggart's life.

Just because the word "perceived" is there doesn't make it NPOV. This whole section about Ozzy v Jimmy has no background to the conflict, or anything about why Swaggart was so opposed to Ozzy. The single sentence on it is not verified "Vehemently castigating Osbourne, Swaggart christened Osbourne as a satanist who ordered teenagers to accept Lucifer as their savior and/or to commit suicide." The rest of the paragraph is about Ozzy mocking Swaggart in his song. Which is a fair enough thing to have in the article, but it's unbalanced, even within the context of this paragraph.

Klytos (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Complete mess

This article is a jumbled up mess. Information is repeated in various forms, there is no orderly progression or flow. I tried to fix one little bit. Holford (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)