Talk:Brother Stair

??? When has the 33rd Parallel ever had occult significance? Not that I'm any fan of Brother Stair, but should we just throw unsourced stuff at him?

Untitled

Absolutly not. This is all just bias information.

Stubbing this article

I have removed around 90% of the content of this article. The information here was lightly sourced, or far more frequently, especially for the negative comments, entirely unsourced. I am aware that the subject is a controversial figure, and there certainly is legitimate criticism that can and should be present in a fully-developed neutral article. However, all information needs to comply with the biographies of living persons policy, and be verifiable or they are subject to being removed. I have semi-protected the article since it seems to be poorly watched. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The people who are contributing to the article are those who have had personal experience with Stair and even lived with him many years on his cult farm (then later left). Their sources are well sourced and verifiable. You didn't bother to do "due dillegence" and investigate if any of the claims were true, you just did a blanket delete then threatened to block my account which is highly irresponsible. Also, by removing the bulk of the true article you are putting others at jeapardy who are doing research as to whether or not to become part of his commune. Take that into consideration. Voyager77 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here. I rather suspected that one or more editors on this article had personal experience with Stair. In some ways, that makes them the wrong people to write this article. It is not enough that information in a Wikipedia article be true. Before it is appropriate for inclusion, it must first be reported by reliable sources, and as you can see at that link, not all sources of information qualify as reliable. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is Verifiability. That link, right at the beginning, indicates that to be included, information must be verifiable, not true. As applied to Stair, this means that even though the editors here may be eyewitnesses to the things written here, they still are not appropriate for inclusion until they have been independently reported by reliable sources. If the article were limited to verifiable information, we would have gone a long way towards addressing my concerns, and those of the other editors who have left messages on your talk page.

Now you said that the article is well sourced and verifiable. I'm perfectly willing to agree that well-sourced and verifiable information from reliable sources can be re-added to this article, but do you seriously argue that comments like "Brother Stair in worship of himself" or comments about trying to rape people are neutral or verifiable? The "slant" or opinion of the writer should not be apparent from readin the article. Ok, that's a lot to digest. What sources from the old article do you think are reliable? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the text of the article to it's semi original condition. Any blanket deletion as you have done is totally unjustifiable and is putting women and children in jeopardy. The authors here have put their blood, sweat and tears into the content of this article after much research and in some cases, personal experience which does not in any way negate the validity of this article. If you continue your unjustified deletions and modifications I see no other choice than to address my concerns with Wikipedia administration. So let it be written. So let it be done. Voyager77 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And another editor has reverted you. I hope the fact that, by my count, at least four different editors have expressed concern about your edits to this article will encourage you to carefully read the links I previously have provided. You mentioned that you would take this matter up with "Wikipedia aministration." I am an administrator. Your edits are outside of Wikipedia policy, and are inappropriate and quite possibly defamatory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these edits are not encyclopedic. If you feel strongly about documenting your experience, you should consider getting your own website for that purpose. In any event, your activity here has become disruptive, and in my capacity as an administrator I am asking you cease immediately. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the editors that has reversed the edits Voyager has participated in, I support Xymmax's comments and actions. The article in its original form and Voyager edited form contains unsupported allegations and defamatory statements. Both are a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. All article content must be verifiable and the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Unfortunately, Voyager has failed to provide support for the statements in the article. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you get a page Jeffery Dahmer killed X number of people you should take that down right because it's defamatory? Doesn't matter how much evidence or newspaper articles we provide, you should take it down because it could be seen as a personal attack. We have provided you with a mountain of evidence to support the content of the article with newspaper links as well as links to other sites which document the veracity of the article. Now only a skeleton remains. So if one or two points are unsubstantiated does that mean that you blanket delete the entire article? Why don't you put the original article back, minus one or two points you disagree with then we can discuss. I think this is a reasonable compromise. I would be happy to provide you the evidence you require. You can start at this site www.thenetteam.net which contains unbiased newspaper articles and testimonies of those who have encountered Stair. Voyager77 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment about the Dahmer article is not valid. Defame = to attack somebody or somebody's reputation, character, or good name by making slanderous or libelous statements. There is nothing slanderous or libelous in the Dahmer article, all is supported by independent, secondary sources. When I reviewed the references in the Brother Stair article, the references pointed to newspaper articles that had been copied to other sites. Because verifiability is a component of a valid reference, the original material has to be cited in the article.

If you can support the article with adequate references, I suggest you edit the article to include the references. Again, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I would think since you have an interest in the article, you would jump at the chance to repair it. If the edits meet Wikipedia criteria the material will stand. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that this is not a national story and therefore was not covered by national media. It was covered by a local newspaper in Walterboro, SC - The Press and Standard. Even though they do have a website they do not publish their news material on this website. Therefore we have to rely on individuals to scan and post copies of their printed material to the internet. In this case The Net Team (www.thenetteam.net) does an adequate job of this. Feel free to contact The Press and Standard @ (843) 549-2586 for to confirm the veracity of any scanned newspaper article. That is the best we can do. Voyager77 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And we've done that. We've provided good references and documentation but that's not good enough for you apparently. Because one or two points of the article you were not "verifiable" to your standards you blanket deleted the whole article. That is wrong. Voyager77 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links to the scanned newspaper articles for your review http://www.thenetteam.net/pandsnews.html Voyager77 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Scanned articles are hardly valid references. Particularity when they are used to support contentious material and are on sites that openly admit to a biased view of the individual.

Again, I would think since you have an interest in the article, you would jump at the chance to repair it by adding back what material you can support with valid references. If the edits meet Wikipedia criteria the material will stand. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Voyager, please take a look at the links above. Thenetteam.net isn't going to qualify as a reliable source, although if you'd like to make a case for it at the reliable sources noticeboard you're more than welcome. The problem is that it clearly has cherry picked the stories they archive to present a negative image of Stair. WeI was able to locate an electronic copy of a Sept 16, 2007 article, more than two thousand words long, and more recent that any of the articles there. It does talk about Stair's arrest and conviction on reduced charges of assault. It also has him admitting to committing adultery with two women, and mentions that a six figure civil judgment was entered against him in a case brought by some former members of the group. It doesn't confirm the other negative comments. I also found a very short (200 word) article from 2000 that was printed in the UK, and has the "telling God to go to hell" quote. That's pretty much all I've been able to locate on him. Unfortunately I don't have the print outs with me now; I'll try to add the cites tomorrow. As I said, properly sourced and weighted criticism is not a problem; the other type is. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of scanned copies has already been placed on the discussion board and the only comment listed on the board is against. Feel free to add your thoughts and be more specific in discussing the situation on the board. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, here's a couple of unambiguously reliable sourced for you. [1][2]. There are multiple references to him in the latter, if you search.--Slp1 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC) And some more [3][4] There are other news articles available on Factiva and Lexis-Nexis which I can send to editors if they send an email. --Slp1 (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that in light of the above sourced reference material posted by Slp1 which meets or exceeds Wikipedia's standards, I will restore the original article minus of course the material which may be considered defamatory or unverifiable. Then if any editor feels that any part of the article is unreasonable, they may delete only that part as it relates to Wikipedia's policies, rather that the entire article. I think that this is an equitable solution for all sides. Voyager77 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed the text from the article and restored the abridged version. I understand this will not make you, Voyager, happy; however, you continue to apply contentious material to the article without providing adequate references. As indicated above, scanned articles are hardly valid references nor is text copied to other sites that are not related to the Primary source. In addition, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

I want to make it clear I do not want to participate in an edit war, but until you provide the correct level of references, I do not believe anyone will support the article. If you want it to stay please rewrite it to remove the unsupported items and provide references for the items that stay. I suggest you add parts of the article bit by bit rather than trying to add the entire text. Thanks and my best to you... ttonyb1 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if you misunderstood me, Voyager77. The references I gave above were so that you could write new text, sourced and attributed to them and them alone. It certainly wasn't intended as a license for restoring highly problematic, inappropriately sourced information. Begin again and write text that is sourced only from agreed upon reliable sources, and you will be fine. It won't be what you had before, but it will be plenty colourful enough. If you persist it reinserting this material without consensus into a BLP, you will find yourself blocked from editing. Ttonyb1's advice about adding sections slowly, with clear, reliable citations, is very good.--Slp1 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another useful newspaper article hosted online at the original newspaper website. [5]; and like I said I can send others if people send me an email from my userpage. Ttonyb1, I'm wondering if you would be willing to help Voyager77 and write a few paragraphs of appropriately sourced, neutrally phrased text to show him/her how it is done?--Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ttonyb1. I don't know if you know about the diberri template filler. It's great for books, if you have the ISBN numbers and gives you a lovely filled in cite book template. Would you be willing to try some of the more delicate areas of Stair's life? There is a useful template here [6] for the newspaper articles. --Slp1 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a couple of paragraphs including some related to the controversial aspects of his life. Thanks for the templates, I generally use reflinks at various times to set the correct format for references. I'll be curious to see how the article progresses over the next few days and might revisit it in the future. My best to you and thanks for your help in providing the references. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The main thing is that we get the truth out. That is what I care about. Voyager77 (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is your only goal, V77, then you are in the wrong place. WP doesn't do truth per se; we do verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research and a few other things. If you want to get the truth out, get a webpage and do it there. Sorry to be blunt, but them's the rules if you want to contribute here.

Thanks, Tony, for your work. You've done lots of hard work here, and brought the page forward in terms of sourcing, content etc. Personally, I'm not a great fan of controversy sections, and neither is WP, it seems. My hope is that this information can be incorporated into a fuller article describing a bit more about the man and his beliefs, as well as some of his less controversial actions and activities. I believe these are describe in some of the article I have linked to. --Slp1 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Slp1, thanks and you are absolutely right. I added the section called Religious beliefs and subsequently Overcomer Ministry in hopes that V77 would expand the article and provide a more balanced view. Unfortunately, V77 chose to instead reinstate biased external links. (I have again removed the links from the article in hopes of removing the bias.) As the article currently stands it is lacking in balance and perspective. If it does not change, I would support AfDing the article to provide a larger audience discussion and perhaps deletion. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that I am the one to provide "balance and perspective" in this particular article since as you say I am biased against the person of interest. However, there are others, who can provide content in this regard. Perhaps even some of the text from the original article can be extracted and applied? I will leave that up to you people since almost every one of my insertions has been deleted. Voyager77 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I admit it might be tough to write some of the other needed aspects, but WP respects editors who can write for the enemy, and I certainly would be most impressed if you could. In fact, that's the way all WP editors are supposed to write, all the time. It's quite a fun challenge, I find. BTW, I imagine some of the old text could probably be recycled, though obviously referenced, and with editing to ensure that all the content is included in the reliable sources given. If you give it a go, I will try and help where I can.--Slp1 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also be impressed and would help as well. Some of my most challenging and fun edits were for articles that were about "the enemy". 8-) ttonyb1 (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper name for the article

The article always has been identified as "Brother Stair" (his longtime on-air nickname) but should it actually be Ralph Gordon Stair or R. G. Stair? That question has been nagging at me for the past few months. --Nathan Obral (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question. I don't really know. Per WP:NAME, we are supposed to use the most easily recognizable name, which might be well be Brother Stair, I would guess. Anyway, if you would care to read the policy and maybe do a spot of research (google searches of the various versions might be helpful, for example), that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"See Also"

There are "see also" links to Aimee Semple McPherson and Eugene Scott. Based purely on their Wikipedia entries and this one for Brother Stair, this doesn't seem fair to McPherson or Scott. How would those who have taken an interest in this page feel about removing the 'see also' section? Stratopastor (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, in the absence of comment here I'm going to remove the 'see also' section. If anyone puts it back I'll leave it alone (22 Sep 2012)