Talk:Peter Popoff

Randi

Can anyone specify which sources there are for this info? Except maybe the refs I found were at James Randi, a critic of Peter Popoff -- TheQz 22:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quotes I just submitted are directly from his infomercial. -- dpk 15:32, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article is problematic because it presents the subject from only the prespective of a debunker. We need to be neutral here at Wikipedia. The criticism should stay as referenced, but we should also include biographical and "other side of the story" testimony in the article to preserve neutrality. One idea would be to take all of the critical comments and revelations about Popoff's charlatanism and place it in a separate section. --ScienceApologist 18:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC) It's only from the prospective of a debunker because he is a false man.There simply is no other viewpoint when a guy is receiving messages through an earpiece from his wife. It's fair, because not one person will seriously suggest they are words of god, once they know the facts. mrjeffpayne@yahoo.com

Okay, but is Popoff notable for anything _besides_ his charlatanism? Runderwo 20:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Popoff is a fringe personality in faith-healing who is only well-known because he was caught using an earpiece and survey cards to pretend to receive "revelations". Inevitably, most faith healers and evangelists only gain mainstream coverage when they're caught lying, or exposed as frauds. - Chadbryant 01:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Popoff's main notoriety is from his debunking, so the article should focus on that. The fact that the facts reflect badly on Popoff does not mean the article is biased (see NPOV#Undue weight and NPOV#A simple formulation); notice that the article doesn't read "Peter Popoff is a bad, bad man." Paraphrased, it reads "Peter Popoff acted like he was listening to God when he was really listening to a radio transmission", and I don't know of any other version of the story. His site doesn't mention the incident (surprise, surprise), googling "Peter Popoff" will give you links to dozens of Christian sites openly critical of him, he admitted to the charade in the past, and even Jerry Falwell sent a letter to the Tonight Show at the time in approval of the debunking.^[1] What specific parts of the article are non-NPOV? What "other side" is there to represent? — Elembis 07:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Popoff exploits religion and believers for money. That is the truth. The truth may not be pretty sometimes, deal with it and stop crying about neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.11.205 (talk • contribs) 11:17, May 10, 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that Popoff's main notoriety is from his debunking. He has enough money to sponsor his own show on television where he hawks his wares. It is conceivable that a causal reader would come to this page having only seen his infomercials and not knowing about the debunking. In this case, it is vital that we include the appropriate debunking as it is useful information. However, it would be nice to actually learn something about the guy other than debunking his absurd claims. I'd like to know how he got his start, what churches he affiliates with, who supports him, who doesn't, etc. You know, a neutral description of his position in society. As a reader, I find the information currently in the article useful, but before this article becomes NPOV, it needs to be expanded in other areas. --ScienceApologist 13:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the article has improved since I last read it. It's getting much closer to NPOV, so thanks to all who helped. --ScienceApologist 14:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, what I said was too generalized; it's quite conceivable that someone who watches American TV more than they browse the internet would know more about Miracle Spring Water than his debunking. And I agree that it would be nice to include more information about his earlier years, church membership, denominational affiliations, and any notable support he's received. But I don't think our current inability (or at least my current inability) to find such (ostensibly neutral) information from reliable sources makes the article non-NPOV. I doubt you do, either.

The only biographical information I've been able to find is from his page about himself. But I'm strongly inclined to not use it; it makes the extraordinary claims that he "preached his first sermon at age nine and conducted his first crusade at age 14", that he and his wife "have ministered in over forty countries" (I'm guessing he's counting TV broadcasts as ministries), and that he "spearheaded a massive Bible smuggling crusade that successfully penetrated the Iron Curtain and sparked a revival that continues to this day." The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Role of the subject as a source, which says information cited from self-published material (i.e., a work published by the person it discusses) may only be added to an article if meets several criteria, one being that "there is no reasonable doubt that it was written by the subject." In this case, there is such reasonable doubt: it's written in the third person, and it isn't signed, so it could have been written by an aide just as easily as by Popoff himself. That means that, according to a guideline (not a policy), we should not use that page as a source.

Shouldn't the article be concerned with the important facts rather than the most "widely known" ones? The man is plainly a fraud and a charlatan, it's not non-NPOV to state this plainly. The article needs to be 'accurate' above all. -- Lacerta 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article a few minutes ago and was strongly tempted to remove the NPOV notice, but I think I'll let you do that when we agree we've reached our goal. Significant progress has been made, and I'm eager to know what problems, if any, still exist. — Elembis 04:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article has reached a point now where the NPOV notice can be removed. Thanks everybody for their help! --ScienceApologist 19:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

TV Schedule

The article states:

Popoff can now be seen on the Travel Channel, BET, and Comedy Central

This, I think, is a little misleading. While it is true he does appear on those channels, it is in paid infomercials. The way it is worded kind of implies it's regular programming, which it is not. Should this be made clearer? Jake b 05:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It now reads "Popoff's infomercials can be seen...". — Elembis 06:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Basic facts

When and where did this guy born? I wasn't able to find such a simple thing in google. The purpose is, I'd like to write an article to lt:wiki --Windom 04:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

From his official website: He was born in East Berlin (DDR). When? Doesn't say. It says "After the war", so it was post-1945. - Pernambuco 05:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless the german Wikipedia Article states that he was born in Hamburg (July 2nd 1946) UltraBlonz (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree personally, surely it is up to the reader to define Popoffs' occupation as a "Con Man" rather than the article explicitly mentioning it.

Well, he did make an incredible amount of money from deceiving the public. I doubt he will have any other more profitable occupation than that. And his "supernatural powers" were debunked so it would be really misleading to say he is anything else. --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fraud

Please avoid using the term "fraud" except when refering to the strict legal definition. I changed one instance of the term to "opprobrium" and another instance was folded into the term "exposé". --ScienceApologist 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Fraud" need not refer only to a criminal or civil offense, as the internal link you provided makes clear. (Popoff is in fact listed on the WP fraud page.) Indeed, what was exposed in the exposé to which you refer was a classic fraud: Popoff falsified his divining powers in order to increase the likelihood that he would solicit funds (under false pretenses). He certainly could have been sued in civil court for this, but even if he were not his actions were fraudulent and he was, therefore, executing a fraud. --Patchyreynolds 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia has a very stringent policy on biographies of living people: negative content has to be backed up by reliable, non-partisan sources and be phrased in an understated, neutral tone. The policy is so firm, in fact, that even the three revert rule does not apply in such cases. The use of the word "fraud" to describe people who have not been convicted in a court of law is potentially libellous and in clear violation of this policy. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, these are different issues. "Fraud" does not only have a legal definition. Webster's offers it as "1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK." Several sources on the page establish that Popoff engaged in deceit, trickery, and a perversion of the truth through his wife's secret broadcasts. At no point does the article claim he was convicted of one of the various crimes known as "fraud" within given legal jurisdictions. (And once again, even the WP page opens by noting the "broadest definition" that clearly applies to Popoff.) Referring to an individual's established, cited fraudulent actions as "fraud" is not libelous, nor is one leaving the arena of neutrality in noting that claiming to hear God when actually listening to one's wife whisper through an earpiece is fraudulent. --Patchyreynolds 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you may have misunderstood the point of WP:BLP -- my understanding of it is that any contentious or critical material has to be stated conservatively, so you need to err on the side of caution in terms of using any disputed words or terms. That's why I'd stick to the legal use of the word "fraud" in a context such as this: it avoids any libel issues etc. You don't need to express things like this all that strongly anyway (remember Wikipedia is not a soapbox) -- just state the facts and cite your sources. (See WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves.) — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, Popoff has been proven to be, factually, empirically, a fraud. That he manages to evade legal sanctions by jumping through the "religion" loophole is a nonissue. Further, the evidence has been cited. An article is not excused from the facts simply because they are distasteful. RvLeshrac 06:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's either a fraud, or he's nuts. -Yancyfry 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He is a Fraud. Period.

This guy is not a man of God. He is a fraud. But this is wikipedia so we have to be nuetral even if we all no its true. Guys like this make me so mad!Ltwin (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My father wrote to him early this year (2008), and the reply that came back predicted 'good luck and fortune' or 'inheritance from a relative you never knew existed (sic).' Perhaps unsurprisingly, another, separate letter arrived, apparently from a Spanish [mainland] lottery firm. It requested a name, address, phone number and bank details. Coincidence? I am curious to hear of any other cases like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.220.133 (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Did the company want his credit card info. too? Even if your father won 500 billion dollars in the lottery it still wouldn't mean anything about Popoff. He sends thousands of letters out and so he's going to eventually some detail in some letter connects to some people. Now if you father won the lotto and Popoff said "you will win the lotto" then maybe he'd be on the road to winning James Randi Educational Foundation paranormal prize.

Until then don't send info. to scammers claiming to be a lotto, Nigerian prince, selling snake oil or miracle crackers. C56C (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the implication 139.168.220.133 (that IP# is in Australia) was actually raising was more along the lines of "birds of a feather flock together" then of supernatural power. On that it is hard to tell. As Carl Sagan pointed out in the "Hallucinations" chapter in Demon Haunted World ads in UFO and similar publications have their audience's skepticism (or more accurately lack of it) in mind and this letter sounds too focused to be coincidence. Remember, physical mail is expensive especially if it was an international letter as indicated. To make an such an effort remotely viable whoever sent it had think they had better than normal odds of the receiver to go for the idea. There are all sorts of questions here: 1) where did the get the name and address from in the first place? and 2) why did they think that this even would be viable? This where the skeptic mind should take you.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Video

• Peter Popoff Inside Edition 2007
• Video with fm interception

Fair use rationale for Image:IMG 0329.JPG

Image:IMG 0329.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources on manna

I have re-added a section on the "manna" sourced to a UK regulator's dim view of it. As for the claims recently deleted, if someone watched a show of his and compared the bible reference that refers to "defiled bread" and recorded this on the basis of primary sources, it would be a violation of the OR policy that "Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research". Therefore, there appears to be no basis for including this. The lists of the rubbish he sends out appear to be anecdotal and therefore inadmissible, but there is an Australian government source that gives a similar list. The photograph of his letter is not in violation of OR unless it is used to "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Billwilson5060 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Life section

Im culling the Early Life section, the section is way too biased to be considered useful, anyone placing any objections? Captain Superman (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliance

User:Nickpopoff (a user with with an obvious conflict of interest) has repeatedly added this disclaimer to the financial details section: "All of the Executives at People United For Christ Inc, including Peter Popoff's compensation is determined by an Independent Compensation Committee, and are in full compliance with all State and Federal Laws." This disclaimer is not verifiable. We would need a reliable third party publication to verify this. --Daniel 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Finance

In the article is stated that randi said $4.3 million a month. I heard Randi say it was $4.3 million a YEAR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNl52deOZro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.114.62.72 (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've updated it (belatedly). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Burglary staging claim

Is the claim about Popoff staging a burglary sufficiently sourced? This is, after all, a WP:BLP article. Muad (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...that's just the question I had while reading this after watching him on TV with my jaw on my knee. Sheila KIng