Talk:Earl Paulk

Vandalism?
"and spread the word of Adolf Hitler" doesn't seem apropos here without some backup. Should there be a lock against anonymous changes on this page in light of the subject's current position in the news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.57.3.195 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Scandal removal
Why was all the (largely correct) information about scandals and controversy (including the Mona Brewer case which was in the news as of last week) removed? Seems like suppression rather than constructive editing. Scott Johnson 14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I partially reverted by copying the last version before the scandal references were taken out and pasted them after the Ministry section. WAVY 10 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good move. I don't see a thing there that isn't factual, and there's no ad hominem or slant aspect to it. Scott Johnson 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Earl Pearly Paulk?
Where did the Pearly part come from? WAVY 10 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The simple and obvious answer is "From his parents!" "Pearly" is Earl Paulk's middle name. Scott Johnson 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked that because I wasn't certain if that came from a legitimate edit. WAVY 10 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know. The scandals go all the way back to the 60's, and it's important that people know the truth.

Last edit
Curious...

"Earl Paulk has been involved in multiple sex scandals, going all the way back to the early 60's. The most recent included his own granddaughter and another young girl."

I'm a little dubious about the second half of the edit, but I don't want to delete unless it can be proven; but it doesn't need to be at the end of the page. WAVY 10 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This information came to light in the depositions for the upcoming trial in which Earl Paulk is a defendant. It is a matter of public record. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ExCHHC (talk • contribs).


 * Remember where I said I was a little dubious about the granddaughter being a victim of this predator? Well, I found a story carried on OneNewsNow.com (Christian news site run by the American Family Association) where his granddaughter testified that she was inappropriately touched by Paulk. I added that as soon as I found the article. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm hello?
Listing all those who did sign that statement as "proof" doesn't quite cut it - get rid of it and source a ref that sayd what this is suppose to be stating; we are an encyclopedia not a tabloid. All of the "interesting" items on this person's biography need to be removed if they are not balanced, neutral and preferably referenced. Benjiboi 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, at the VERY least, reformat into a list or SOMETHING! WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree, reformatting bad content can only make it look better. The same effect can be had from stating "Paulk's signature was not amongst the X or so ministers". Benjiboi 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapel Hill Harvester Church
This church is presented as important in the lede, it should be noted something along the lines if it's Pentecostal, Christian, Baptist etc. (sorry religion not my specialty) as well as something that others would note as actaully being notable about the church, first, largest, fastest growing etc. Benjiboi 06:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pentecostal. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Charismatic and pentecostal. Paulk used to head the United Communion of Charismatic Churches or somesuch, before his fall from grace of sorts. Paulk's theology isn't quite like the usual charismatic nor the usual pentecostal, though.  Scott Johnson (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section
This entire section needs reliable sources throughout. Per WP:Bio we should do no harm, if claims have been reported in reliable sources then we need to cite them. And per WP:RS exceptional claims need exceptional sources. We need to present this information neutrally and dispassionately and with references. Benjiboi 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Update. I've asked for other editors to look at the BLP issues. One note that may help all concerned is that everything should be referenced especially in a controversy section a general reference for an entire paragraph is not enough.Benjiboi 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to edit the Controversies section
2/18/08 Editor David Cannon wrote "I have reverted a whole slew of deletions that you have made, with a dubious explanation. Let's get this straight: if you want to delete whole chunks of sourced information, you'd better get consensus on the talk page first. Otherwise, you'll find a whole lot of irate users, who have put a lot of time and effort into the article, who are not amused by such antics. David Cannon (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

First, my apologies to the community for failing to properly introduce the edits via this talk page. Hours of rudimentary discoveries among the user pages did not reveal the “discussion page” that David referred to as a “talk page”. Admittedly, I am new to this open architecture style of history reporting so I may lean on fellow contributors as “experts” in this endeavor in order to gain some better personal proficiency.

RE the Earl Paulk bio article, the significant edits I made were primarily to the controversies division. The information posted on the Earl Paulk bio page, although factually referenced from credible sources is all based on reported innuendo, accusation, hearsay, and libelous material that has been legally found to be baseless and without legal merit. My intended goal is to clean up the biography of this living person by removing the selected references that constitute undue weight of accusation, particularly since each citation in the controversy section relates to a civil matter that was dropped by the accuser. Allowing them to remain, although a good display of Wikipedia editing clearly violates the spirit and the law of do no harm. It is my intent to minimize the harm caused by inaccurate, unbalanced and inappropriate provision of accusation vis-à-vis the posting information having little relevance to the biography, being based in speculation. My additional rationales are as follows:

1) Compromise of added value: Although I am certain that a “super contributor” such as David Cannon, posts with well intentioned zeal, it is my opinion that the existing controversy section does not contribute to the overall intent of an individual’s bio, rather, in the current view, it has essentially become a bio of the accusers. While well sourced, the info presented constitutes speculation, dubious allegation, and unfounded accusation, essentially dominating the biography by a single set of reports, none of which are factual or definitive. 2) Undue weight: The over posting of allegations, in this specific case, each relating to a dropped lawsuit, represent undue weight of reference that seem to be disproportional to the balance of the factual biographical content. In my opinion this excessive posting of non-fact based cited reporting violates chief tenants of NPOV guidelines.

3) Posting neutrality and verifiability seem to both be compromised by the controversy references. Although on first pass, it appears that the best and most reputable authoritative sources are used, still, they are undeniably libelous as they are accusation based. It is a critical distinction to note that each reference to Earl Paulk in the controversy section is based on the same reference accusation which led to a civil lawsuit which no longer exists. Exactly no entry references an allegation resulting in a conviction. Only the lawsuit settled out of court should count and I left that reference in my edit of 2/17/08. The current view violates Posting neutrality and verifiability because they reference hearsay and accusation, not factual based information, which also violates the guidelines related to “do no harm”

4) Observance of balance rules: The posts fail to ascribe equal validity to the possibility that they are perhaps just senseless accusation. The fact is, as cited by direct quote, the reason the Brewer’s case was dropped is because they could not find enough witnesses to testify against Earl Paulk. Further, the withdrawal came just before the judge was about to throw out the case as baseless. Yet the controversies section gives significant undue weight to unfounded hyperbole as in someway being significant to a personal bio. Conversely, were the case cited adjudicated against Earl Paulk, the references would have historical significance, deemed to be somewhat factual by peer review.

5) Good faith assumed, however, upon closer inspection: Notwithstanding my careful assumption of David Cannon’s well intentioned good faith, the sheer volume of posted allegation seems to constitute one-sided special pleading of both partial and biased provision of information. Although the referenced newspaper articles are doubtless completely truthful in attempt to report, they are reporting dubious allegation rather than definitive fact. In this case, when added to a bio post, it essentially becomes the selective presentation of facts which unwittingly, if not seemingly designed to, encourage a particular viewpoint or send a loaded message which does harm and violates NPOV in a similar fashion as does advocacy journalism.

6) Inflammatory, shocking, and provocative: Read as posted, the selected citations appear as provocative in nature, almost seemingly inserted to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. While I am sure this was not David’s intention, the very nature “shocking” yet unfounded allegation fails the “burden of evidence test” and should be removed.

7) And lastly, quoting directly from Wikipedia, “Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Further, “biogaphies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone”

In summary, I am seeking consensus to restore the edits I made on 2/17/2008 under the user name jeffnix. 68.184.149.224 (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see what other contributors have to say about this. If necessary, I will also ask some administrators who are not involved in this article to rule on it. They could be more objective than I am. David Cannon (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article could use some updating - particularly outside the controversies section, but there is very good evidence used in the controversies section. There's also a guilty plea on a perjury charge, based on DNA evidence that he fathered his "nephew," a confession (through his lawyer) on the Brewer case, and the case settled out of court for $400,000.  Looks to me there's plenty of well documented evidence.  Please don't remove the FoxNews clip in the external links.  The article has been on WP:BLPN before and passed muster.  If there is any serious question on BLP, why not just post it there again?  Smallbones (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True, though there is a good chance you will be hard pressed to find much on Paulk that doesn't revolve around these varied sexual misdeeds. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User Jeff Nix = Jeff Nix ' 2/20/08 - Thanks for the Dialogue here. The article does need updating, I have many references, source materials, citations, such as President Bush’s original letter awarding the point of light. I am not sure how to validate the citation in the “eyes” of Wikipedia. I would be happy to move to updating as soon s the clean up is accomplished. On the other suggestions towards the end of cleaning up the BLP on Earl Paulk, I cite each with comment:

Smallbones - “but there is very good evidence used in the controversies section”  JeffNix – the “evidence” is accusation only. The references to factual data as the out of court settlement and action with Brewers is still in my edit. I only sought to remove sensationalism and tabloid journalism. Scandalous reports by confirmed news outlets based on unfounded and dropped allegations do not constitute evidence or print worthy encyclopedic reference, in my opinion and in keeping with “do no harm” and NPOV.

Smallbones - “There's also a guilty plea on a perjury charge, based on DNA evidence that he fathered his "nephew," a confession (through his lawyer)” JeffNix – I would agree on the factual placement of the guilty plea, it is a part of history, irrefutable, undeniable, grounded in durable definitive fact. The connection to DNA and paternity is irrelevant in my view. That fact presses the envelope on violation of personal information that does not serve the BLP criteria. I would agree to preserve the plea information but truncate the reference. In particular, I would prefer it read similar as follows: “Earl Paulk received a guilty ruling on a perjury charge linked to false statements concerning a paternity issue within his immediate family. This action was not directly related to any allegation brought by any of Paulk’s accusers” Anything along these lines serves the facts well while not sensationalizing the data as the news media has done so handily. Fair weight and neutrality are best served when inflammatory, and provocative selective verbiage is eliminated, and this BLP is full of it.. Smallbones – “''Looks to me there's plenty of well documented evidence”. '' JeffNix – I respectfully submit that there is plenty of well documented sensationalized hyperbole. Please note that I do not at all seek to minimize the facts or selectively allow less harmful material. I have however, drawn a careful distinction between irrefutable fact and sensationalized advocacy journalism. I purposely left all the relevant facts associated with any sexual misconduct allegation. I will go back and pay special attention to this declaration to assure that the facts are indeed intact within my edits.

WAVY 10 Fan – “there is a good chance you will be hard pressed to find much on Paulk that doesn't revolve around these varied sexual misdeeds” JeffNix  - Not to criticize, rather to state the intuitively obvious, YES, indeed, much of what one finds as current events in the modern media about Earl Paulk does in fact revolve around “these varied sexual misdeeds”… as written and sensationalized'. Prior to the emergence of pile on styled accusation, the press about Earl Paulk was all solid, commendable, and exemplary of a lifetime of dedicated service as a man of the cloth. What is now being rpesented as original press is nothing more than regurgitated shock factor tabloid trouncing. I have no problem dealing with the factual aspects of this BLP but adding accusation and potentially libelous material attempts to legitimize the allegations which do nothing but exacerbate the frailty of the human condition; this cannot possibly further the Wikipedia objectives of fair treatment in the spirit of neutrality. What it does proffer is furtherance of the “court of public opinion”.

As the editors consider my position about this BLP, note now please my free commentary: If the Wikipedia project begins to allow innuendo to rule the day, the very basis of principle of factual encyclopedic preservation is all but lost, having succumbed to the popular culture of man seeking to define his existence in the lowest possible terms. Within the Wikipedia community of rational thinkers, thoughtfully contemplative measures should be assumed as priorities against the tyrannical nature of the modern media’s “gotcha style” systematic destruction of all things good and proper. Yes, we should show the warts but not destroy those afflicted by them through unrelenting investigative journalism that unnecessarily widens a gap as to make it impossible to bridge. For the most part, inclusion of the accusers information in the Earl Paulk BLP essentially establishes, glorifies, encourages, adds credibility to, expands and sanctions they very spirit of degradation that each of the Wikipedia tenants strive to avoid. User Id JeffNix 68.184.149.224 (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I need to clarify one point. There is a huge difference between QUOTING a news report and ENDORSING it.  Wikipedia quotes/cites news media.  It DOES NOT endorse any point of view.  The media allegations against Paulk are quoted.  So, too, are his denials - and the readers can make up their own minds.  That Paulk molested his granddaughter is only a rumour.  That he has been ACCUSED of doing so is FACT.  Wikipedia DOES NOT SAY that he molested her, only that she has accused him of doing so - and that he has denied it.  That is perfectly factual. As for his guilty plea for perjury, that is not rumour/innuendo but fact.  He did plead guilty, period.  The article must, and does, say so.  To remove it would be akin to allowing George W. Bush to edit his own article to remove our reporting of negative views of his Iraq war, or allowing Bill Clinton to delete references to his fling with Monica.  We cannot and will not pander to such distortionist editing.  We welcome newcomers here, and that includes you.  But even old-timers who go round deleting well-sourced information can find themselves very unpopular, I'll inform you. David Cannon (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

JeffNix 2/27/08 I have added a simple text and link regarding the news developments today on the brewer's case. As soon as the complete details are made public, I will share those and my rationale for significant edits of the information that now are clearly being presented in tabloid stylized sensationalism. It’s like the feather pillow burst aloft to the wind by an accuser, although deeply penitent, neither the accuser or the accused can gather all the feathers of accusation and innuendo that have been scattered by the wind to the four corners of the globe. It’s time to right this BLP and protect the fragility of Earl Paulk’s desperately damaged character and ministry…  Jeff Nix (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. Wikipedia is not in the business of "protecting" anybody.  It is only in the business of providing accurate information, positive or negative, which can be accurately and authoritatively sourced.  You will NOT be allowed to come in here throwing your POV around.  You are welcome here, but if you go on another deletion spree, I will report you to the Arbitration Committee, which will have something to say.  David Cannon (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before we go directly to the ArbCom, there should be some type of mediation first, although there has been some WP:BLPN input awhile ago (that's how I got here). But I think any type of mediation will come down to the same thing that David Cannon and myself have been saying.  I think we are giving you chapter and verse of Wikipedia policy and the usual interpretations.  Speaking of chapter and verse, may I ask if you have a WP:COI conflict of interest?
 * (sorry for the bad joke) Smallbones (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think I have a conflict of interest. I am a Pentecostal Christian, so if I had any bias at all, it would probably be in favour of JeffNix's edits.  The only other COI that I could have is that I have made some of the contributions that JeffNix wants to remove.  But I think I can say in all honesty that I would just as emphatically oppose deleting them if I had nothing to do with them. As for whether JeffNix has a conflict of interest, only he can answer that. But his stated intention of "protecting the fragility of Earl Paulk's desperately damaged character and ministry" rings alarm bells. David Cannon (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whose idea was it to drop the factual phrase "and pleaded guilty to perjury on 15 January 2008." from the article? I'm assuming it was JeffNix. Debates over controversy make sense. Dropping a fact from the article which is a matter of public record does not make sense and seems biased. Scott Johnson (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)