Talk:Peter Popoff

. Happy birthday rev pop off

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. What specific parts of the article are non-NPOV? What "other side" is there to represent? &mdash; 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 Biographies of living persons, 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. &mdash; 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...". &mdash; 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.) — 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 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.203.57 (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Plans for Article Improvement
While Popoff was clearly debunked by James Randi, I think some work needs to be done to bring the page in line with wp:NPOV. A couple of sources used are really questionable, irrelevant information has been inserted into the article, there are some wp:MOS issues. Also, the quotations by Fred M. Frohock and Ole Anthony are gratuitous and add little if anything to the article. The Ole Anthony quote in particular seems to be merely a way to attack Popoff without overtly violating wp:BLPSTYLE. I will be making a series of small-ish edits and posting on the talk page where it seems necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskymorning (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Causation of Bankruptcy
While it is true that, chronologically speaking, Popoff declared bankruptcy after Randi & Co. exposed him, the way the sentence was written implied that there was direct causation. This may not necessarily be the case, as the LA Times article shows. This is a more balanced telling using a source already included in the article. If Simon is a reputable source regarding how many creditors were at Popoff at the time (which is cited later in the section "Exposed as a fraud by James Randi"), Simon's characterization of the reasons for the bankruptcy should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskymorning (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Frohock Quote in Lede
Essentially the entire page is about how Popoff is a fake healer and the lede already talks about James Randi's exposure of Popoff. There's no reason to include this quote, especially considering that "egregious" is a normative judgment and it is not all clear why Frohock's opinion should be definitive as it relates to the dichotomy of fake healers. From what I can gather, Frohock is a political scientist, not an expert on evangelical religion or fake healers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskymorning (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You have over-reduced Frohock. He has several books on this subject. While his opinion may not be "definitive" it is definitely representative. --Daffydavid (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Daffydavid, I see your point, upon more careful review I see that he has more knowledge on the subject than I originally realized. I appreciate you pointing this out to me. However, even if the quote has validity, I still don't think it belongs in the lede. Because, let's face it, the whole article is about how he's a fake healer, and the more important aspect, namely Randi's exposure, is already described there, so the Frohock quote seems redundant. I feel like it should be, at least, repositioned elsewhere. Looking forward to your thoughts. -Blueskymorning(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Blueskymorning. The quote is an accurate summary of the academic consensus on Popoff. As such, I think it fits well in the lede. Lede's are supposed to summarize the body of the article. Although it was the most prominent, Randi was not the only one to expose his controversial behavior, and Randi is far from the only person to express the sentiment that he is a 'fake healer'. This is explained in the article, so having it summarized in the lede is appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

When, exactly, did his self-titled TV show start?
This article says that he had a TV show "in the early 80s." This is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. I need an exact year, and I want a day and month. Is that so difficult?

Doubledragons (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, since you haven't added the information yourself, then I guess it is so difficult. Try asking nicely next time. If we knew that information, we would add it. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't edit Wikipedia articles anymore since people require a degree of quality from me that they don't seem to require from others, such as whoever created and edited this article. By the way, it was 1982. I Googled it. As for nice, they're never nice about it. That part made me laugh at loud. I'm sure they're quite nice as they try to get my IP address banned for "vandalizing" pages with facts. lol

http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/13/09/e3931356/peter-popoff-ministries-visits-philadelphia-with-message-of-hope-and-fa

You're welcome, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 04:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A press-release issued on Benzinga ain't a WP:RS, so no thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Peter Popoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110310070021/http://peterpopoff.org:80/ministry-history to http://peterpopoff.org/ministry-history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Peter Popoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110063847/http://www.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/story.html?id=c646f380-3796-41a6-821d-5e29c54e0b98 to http://www.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/story.html?id=c646f380-3796-41a6-821d-5e29c54e0b98
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701124916/http://www.ofcom.org.uk:80/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb117/ to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb117/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peterpopoff.org/tv.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi protection requested
Due to persistent vandalism CaptainPedge  &#124;  Talk  23:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @CaptainPedge: Here's the thing. Right now, I see good edits and bad edits coming in from the IP editors. So, protecting the article could be doing as much harm as good. If the vandalism were to pick up, that would change things, but for now, I don't think protection is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Fraudulent" Faith Healer
I changed this to "discredited" to bring the lede more into an NPOV tone. There is ample explanation in later sentences and the rest of the article about the nature of his activities. Putting "fraudulent' in the lede of a BLP is not in keeping with our strict NPOV policy for them. Open to discussion on it but reverts should be avoided as BLP is not subject to 3RR. WGFinley (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular Culture
In the 1989 Chevy Chase movie "Fletch Lives" there is a "faith healer" character named Jimmy Lee Farnsworth who runs the fictitious Farnsworth Television Ministry. Farnsworth is monitored by employees during his telecasts and is fed information on the people in the audience via a wireless system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.50.93 (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC over BLP Lead's use of "fraud"
Should a BLP conclusively state that the person is a "fraud" absent criminal wrongdoing?

There have been repeated edits and reverts to a definitive statement in the Lead that the subject "is a fraud"‎. This continues despite previous discussion on this Talk page for the last 10 years. See, for example, these diffs by User:CaptainPedge: ,‎ , and . This seems to be unencyclopedic in tone and a BLP violation. The article (including the Lead)‎ correctly and repeatedly cites with attribution that so-and-so has debunked his fraudulent claims, thereby allowing the reader to form their own conclusion. But to state as a fact that the person is a fraud smacks of blatant pov.‎ Unlike Bernie Madoff or Jim Bakker, Popoff has not been criminally charged, much less convicted, of fraud. This must be the standard applied in the case of a BLP.  JGHowes   talk  03:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Patchyreynolds and RvLeshrac's comments in the above discussion CaptainPedge  &#124;  Talk  03:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A cited government source lists him as a fraud, that's good enough for me CaptainPedge  &#124;  Talk  03:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * yes When supported by sources. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The spirit of WP:LABEL should apply here. "So-and-so is a fraud" is unduly vague, not to mention disparaging. If the subject has done things that reliable sources have deemed fraudulent, then that should be explained without using ad-hominem attacks such as "So-and-so is a fraud". Such writing belongs in a tabloid, which Wikipedia is not. Incidentally, WP:BLP/N is probably a better forum for this question than an RfC; consensus doesn't allow us to contravene WP:BLP and especially WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 00:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Comment: one of the instances of the epithet, in a quote from the BBB Wise Giving Alliance ("Popoff appears to have resumed his faith healing sessions in a manner identical to his method prior to his exposure as a fraud"), does not appear in the cited source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - per WP:NPOV. A criminal charge/conviction is not required when the overwhelming majority of reliable sources call him a fraud and one of the main reasons for his notability stems from him being exposed as a fraud. - enormous fraud, exposed as a fraud, Exposed Frauds, exposed as frauds, exposed as a fraud, flim-flam artist, ...fraudulent religous solicitation. A search of google books also reveals numerous entries calling him a fraud. the Popoff fraud, ...con artist, fraud, fraud. Popoff acknowledges that he's been called a fraud and addresses being called a fraud - "As for religious leaders calling me a fraud, that places me in good company," Popoff said. "The religious leaders of Christ's day called him a fake and a demon-possessed fraud. They went so far as to crucify Him. I have no time for my critics, I have a job to do and I'm doing it for God's glory." Isaidnoway (talk)  16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV actually states, "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". It's fine to say that he has been called a fraud, as long as such criticism is properly attributed and cited to secondary sources per WP:BLP. That's different than using Wikipedia's voice to label someone a "fraud". The literal meaning of the term is secondary; there are also plenty of reliable sources calling Donald Trump a "liar", but that doesn't mean that we should use such language in the encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV actually states a lot of things, including...which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic...Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The main reason for his notability stems from him being exposed as a fraud, which the content currently in the article reflects, and since the overwhelming majority of sources highlight his fraudulent activities, it is a significant viewpoint that can't be ignored. There is no "editorial bias" on our part when we are simply documenting what these sources are reporting. I have no problem with stating he is a fraud in Wikipedia's voice or with attribution, but ignoring what the majority of sources has reported goes against WP:NPOV. And as far as WP:BLP is concerned, Popoff is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. This is noteworthy, relevant and well-documented by a multitude of reliable published sources, including his own response to being labelled a fraud. Isaidnoway (talk)  16:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Documenting allegations and incidents is not the same as applying a contentious label to a person. I have no problem with covering the exposure of Popoff's fraudulent activities. In fact, I think the lead section needs to explain this better, but without resorting to epithets. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Partial Yes. For example, we can write "was exposed for fraudulently receiving radio transmissions from his wife while he purported . . "  I don't know if it's valuable to take the additional step of labeling him as a fraud.  There's another issue.  When I do a google search on my mobile device for Peter Popoff, the first item is a wikipedia box which states, "Peter Popoff (is a German-born American televangelist, faith healer and self-proclaimed prophet.. He initially rose to prominence in the 1980s, conducting revival meetings and hosting a nationally televised."  A desktop gives me thirteen additional words.  But both are completely plain vanilla.  Neither gives me any real sense of what the man is about, and what he is well-documented to be about.  Again and again, I've seen people do searches in a variety of contexts in which they read the truncated wiki entry, scroll down scanning some of the rest of the search results, and that is it.  We might bemoan the fact and cry to the heavens that this is not how people should use wikipedia.  But all the same, I think we make better progress if we accept the fact that this how people often do use wikipedia.  We need to get much better at writing the beginning of leads briefer, fuller, and give a more complete nutshell of what the topic is all about.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Kinda No I think there are implications in using the word “fraud” to describe someone; however, we can discuss what he did in greater detail in the lede and says that his claims were fraudulent. To me that has less of a legal implication and isn’t an attack on the person, but on his claims. We could say that “Peter Popoff is a German-born, American televangelist and self-proclaimed faith healer. At the height of his popularity, Popoff claimed to receive information from God about the names and ailments of his followers on stage. The skeptic James Randi exposed Popoff’s fraudulent claims about receiving information from God, when he demonstrated that Popoff used a hidden earpiece to receive information about individuals from his wife, Elizabeth. TastyPoutine  talk (if you dare) 14:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No In my opinion, "fraud" implies a certain legal allegation that I don't think we can make in this case. Describing the actions alleged to be fraudulent in the lede should be sufficient. In addition, if the proper wording isn't clear, WP:NPOV says to "prefer non-judgemental language". In addition, Popoff has objected to the fraud allegations, so putting such a bold statement in the lede may be unduly controversial to some. ThePortaller (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes "In addition, Popoff has objected to the fraud allegations", now that's funny. Shall we not list people under categories or use certain words simply because someone objects? That's absurd. --Daffydavid (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether Popoff objects or not is not the issue; the relevant concern is that WP:BLP articles must be written "cautiously", "conservatively", and "in a dispassionate tone", which includes avoiding judgemental and/or disparaging language per WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and no... This RfC has been approached in a very problematic fashion that conflates two separate issues.  On the one hand, Popoff is clearly (and famously) a known huckster; not only is this abundantly verified in the sources, it is the only source of the man's WP:notability as an encyclopedic topic.  So clearly it is appropriate for the lead to describe the man as a known con-man and progenitor of specific techniques utilized to fleece particularly religious individuals, as this is nothing more than a summary of the content of the article itself, and this is exactly the function a WP:LEAD is meant to serve.


 * That said, using the exact phrase "...is a fraud" is clearly problematic. It's non-specific/overly-generalized and thus non-encyclopedic, even with proper framing--and yes, even a little bit inflammatory in tone, as suggested by some. It's just not the most appropriate way of describing the topic in question, when speaking in Wikipedia's voice.  "Fraudulent faith-healer" is equally problematic, since it is suggestive of the notion that we can have a class of "genuine" and "fake" faith healers, rather than what I presume was the intention (stating that Popoff is a fraud who styles himself as a faith healer).  However, the RfC OP deeply misinterprets this project's policies by advancing the argument that BLPs cannot describe a man as a con-artist if he has not been criminally convicted of the crime of fraud; that comports with neither common sense or basic policy/community consensus on such matters.  We will describe the man in a fashion which is consistent with what the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources say about him, not conclusions arrived at from WP:Original research about his criminal convictions.


 * So, no, the precise phrase "Peter Popoff is...a fraud" is not appropriate wording. But yes, the lead can (and with this sourcing, should) state that the man is known for his snake oil salesman acts--whatever the exact phrasing ultimately arrived at to get that point across in an encyclopedic fashion. Snow let's rap 05:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Popoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915062044/http://www.kidk.com/news/local/11041621.html to http://www.kidk.com/news/local/11041621.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012024926/http://www.komotv.com/news/10404072.html to http://www.komotv.com/news/10404072.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)