Talk:Don Meredith (Canadian clergyman)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] GTA Faith Alliance membership

You claimed in an edit note that the GTA Faith Alliance website "Meredith is the only Member of the "coalition"" I can find no such statement. In fact, there are several references to "alliance members" (plural). While in the pulldown menu Meredith is the only member profiled it's an assumption to conclude from that that the website is stating he is the sole member, particularly when there are statements such as "the GTA Faith Alliance, a group of churches and religious organizations...". Reginald Perrin (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll really have to find more evidence than the fact that there's a single entry in the pulldown menu. Just because there's one entry doesn't mean there's only one member. You are jumping to conclusions (thus original research) that is in direct contradiction to assertions on other parts of the website that there are "members" and that the alliance is a "coalition of church and faith groups". Indeed, you removed that statement which comes directly from the website because it contradicted your *supposition* that the alliance has only one member. Reginald Perrin (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, trying to claim that the Alliance has only one member might be seen as an attempt to defame or at least diminish Meredith. While we shouldn't claim that the Alliance is a mass organization without evidence we also can't claim he is the sole member based on your analysis of a pull down menu! The evidence (including from an academic journal) is that it's a group of pastors and religious leaders. One less reliable source puts the number at "about 40". Your claim is pure supposition which is contradicted not only by statements on the website itself but by statements made independently elsewhere. Reginald Perrin (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reggie, I don't seek an extended debate with you, but the site lists one current Member. Who is that? Surprise, it is the Rev. Don! You appear to have done some additional research to show that there may at one point have been other members. Can you point to anything that suggests that there is, in fact, at present more than one member, the Rev. Don? While you are at it, good luck finding any reference on google to the Rev. Don's church in Richmond Hill. Does it exist in fact? Can you offer any independant support for that other than the Rev. Don's own web site? I think the article is timely, and not a bad start at an article, but I sure wish we had more to go on to substantiate some of the claims made on the Rev. Don's web site. While you are at it, perhaps you can find some independant support for the fact that he has actually been ordained? I don't intend a war with you. I know you hold your views tenaciously, but I hope you will consider some of the points above in the spirit in which they are offered. --Kibomt (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Kibomt, you are engaging in original research. We can only use what's there and not read into it as you have done. And yes, you are speculating based on the pull down menu - that's not a conclusive fact that can justify us saying in the article that the group has only one member. We aren't doing investigative reporting here - if you have evidence that the GTA Faith Alliance is some sort of fraud then go to the press and see if they cover the story. Then, and only then, can we put it in the article. Reginald Perrin (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am nt doing original research, there is only one member listed on the GTA Faith Alliance web site and that is the Rev. Don. I encourage you to cite a single current source suggesting that there are currently other members. You have declined to do so. --Kibomt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And given that the journal I quote above is only a year old it's hardly an ancient or stale source. Do you have any evidence that the 40 or so pastors who belonged to the GTA Faith Alliance have left? Do you have any references to resignations? Reginald Perrin (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Does your year old reference, list any of these pastors by name, and indicate that they are current members? --Kibomt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Kimbut, I don't hold my views "tenaciously". I don't live in the riding and am not a Tory. I just don't think wikipeida is where you should be grinding axes as you seem to have done on various articles relating to political candidates. A blog or message board would be a more appropriate venue for you to raise your questions about Meredith or any other candidate you oppose. Perhaps you can even contact a few reporters and get them on the story and then, if they publish something "exposing" the GTA Faith Alliance or Meredith's church or credentials then by all means we can put it in the article. I want a fair article and I don't think I'm being either pro or anti-Meredith. For instance, in my scan of published news sources I found a recent reference to the fact that Meredith lives in Richmond Hill and put that in the infobox. Given that Meredith is running in downtown Toronto I don't think his Richmond Hill residency is something his campaign will be mentioning. As for his ordination the Rhema Studies of Theology Association does exist[2]. Reginald Perrin (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Rhema Studies of Theology Association does exist, but do you have a single source that indicates that the Rev. Don was, in fact, ordained? That was my question to you? --Kibomt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The GTA Faith Alliance website refers to him as an ordained minister. If you want to investigate whether or not the website is making a true assertion, you can, but that would be original research. Reginald Perrin (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, quite frankly, being a bit familiar with how these sort of community groups work, I suspect given the amount of media attention the GTA Faith Alliance has garnered in the past year or so I suspect that even if it started out with no members it probably has a lot of people lined up now wanted to get involved and likely has a significant contact list. It's quite possible that Meredith keeps a tight reign on it and won't allow anyone else to gain a position of prominence (he seems to be the only spokesperson certainly) but I doubt he's the only "member". Anyway, on a political level, I'd say his chances of winning in the riding or of even coming in second are zero to none. A pentecostal minister isn't going to play well on Church Street, and a Tory isn't going to play well anywhere south of Bloor Street. Reginald Perrin (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I rather suspect given the amount of media attention the GTA Faith Alliance has garnered in the past year or so I suspect that even if it started out with a lot of people lined up wanting to get involved and likely had a significant contact list, it probably has no members now other than the Rev. Don, otherwise they would be listed on the web site and quoted in the media. --Kibomt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That you "suspect" something isn't enough to go on here, extrapolating from a pull down menu that an organization has only one member is pure original research, particularly when there are contradictory claims in published sources. The pull down menu doesn't prove there's only one member, it only proves that only one member has a biography posted. If you have any actual sources such as newspaper articles that confirm your suspicion then we'd have something to work with. Anyway, this argument is now circular - unless you have any new evidence as opposed to supposition I don't see the point in continuing this. Reginald Perrin (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Reggie, you missed the irony. I said "suspect" beause that was the word you used above. The record stands that the GTA Faith Alliance web site lists one and only one member, the Rev. Don. So we are relying on Rev. Don's own assertion that he is ordained and has a church in Richmond Hill? Wow, that's incredible. I think the onus should be on you to demonstrate that the web site membership list should not be properly or adequately cited here. From our past interactions, I agree there is no point continuing this because even the simplest points of logic appear to be difficult for you to grasp. Plus ca change....! --Kibomt (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ordination

  • "Rev. Meredith is completing his ministerial ordination as he establishes a church in Richmond Hill." [3] (2006)
  • "Rev. Don Meredith is a licensed minister with Rhema Studies of Theology Association" [4] (October 1, 2007)

According to its website "Rhema Studies of Theology Association & Biblical Training received Registered Charities status with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency on June 14, 1999. On December 18, 2001 RSOTA received the Charter to Ordain and register ministers to obtain marriage licence." They do not list their ordinations online but I'm sure if you phoned them up (416.879.9303) they'd tell you whether Meredith is on their rolls. Now your findings would be original research but if you were to find that his claims of ordination are false I'm sure the media would be interested. So, if you feel there is merit in your suspicion why don't you go out and try to prove that the GTA Faith Alliance website is false in its assertion about Meredith's ordination? Reginald Perrin (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warner

In the Warner article Plett (the party president) doesn't actually say these are the reasons though he doesn't deny it other. He says "But I'm not suggesting that. I'm simply saying that we can't discuss the reasons why. If Mr. Warner says that is the reason, then he's, I guess, telling everybody `I wasn't prepared to go along with the rules.'"

We can really only say based on the Star article that the reasons are alleged and that the Tories have refused to comment. However, the CP article we cite in the Meredith article, correctly or not, makes an unequivocal statement so I'm not going to quibble since CP is a reliable source. I'm going to check again though to see if the CP article mentions the AIDS conference. If not, then I suggest we not give that as an unequivocal reason. (Personally, I think it probably was part of it but that's just my opinion). Reginald Perrin (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The CP article we cite as a source for that sentence only says "He was dumped because he was considered too outspoken and progressive on urban issues such as immigration, education and affordable housing." That's enough to get rid of the "allegedly" for those issues but we need another source for the AIDS conference. Reginald Perrin (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source that states unequivocally that the AIDS conference was one reason why Warner was dropped you are engaging in speculation. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If others agree with you then we can go for something bolder but until then, as there is doubt, better to opt for the more cautious version. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kibomt asked me to come review the dispute here. To be honest, I'm not sure this article needs to go into any detail about the specific reasons behind Warner's dismissal as the Conservative candidate. Warner has his own separate article, which is wikilinked from here — any sourced detail on the Warner dismissal should be in that article, certainly, but it's of only minimal importance in this one. Here, it's sufficient to just say Meredith became the new Conservative candidate after Warner was dismissed and leave it at that. IMO, anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the nention should be brief in the Meredith article. I don't agree that this is of "minimal importance" Dismissing a nominated candidate in this way is somewhat unprecedented in our political system so the reasons for the dismissal are relevant to the replacement candidate. This seems to be especially true where the sponsored replacement candidate appears to have very different social views to the replaced candidate, especially in a very diverse riding such as Toronto Centre. For what it is worth, that appears to be the way the blog comments are going so far. --Kibomt (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point as the article is about Meredith, not Warner. I think some mention of the controversy is merited as it does have a direct impact on Meredith's campaign but the mention should be brief. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Clerical issues

Please see the rest of this page for an elaboration of the issues at hand. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Ordination There seems to be reasonable evidence that he is ordained. Unless there is a source which claims that he is not ordained, I think this is a non-issue.
  • Warner I say that if you can make the subject of his election its own section, the info can be justifiably included. Since we can expect more info regarding the outcome of this election in the next three months, might be best to expand the article and prep for the info's arrival.
  • GTA Alliance Gotta tell you, eesh. It does seem a little odd that the website only has Meredith. There are a couple of sources that assert that there are other members, but not one of them mentions another name. Sounds like PR, not facts. If you could get this from the NY Times or Washington Post, I'd say no problem. Maybe if both sides could summarize wht the issues are here? It'd be really helpful. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I see it, the only source for ordination proposed thus far is the GTA Faith Alliance web site of which Meredith remains the only current member accoring to that site. --Kibomt (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is Canada's equivalent to the New York Times and it had an article that stated the GTA Faith Alliance was a coalition of 40 churches at its founding a few years ago. There is no source on the membership of the Alliance at present and my view is that Kibomt's conclusions are either pure speculation or original research. His "pull down menu" evidence is pure inference. Meredith will be scrutinized during the by-election and, in fact, if the GTA Faith Alliance is some sort of Potemkin Village I'm sure one of his opponents will get the press to investigate. Until and unless there is some sort of doubt cast in the press or some other reliable source questioning the composition of the Alliance I do not think it would be appropriate for us to go down that route. We aren't investigative reporters. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a 2007 source that states that the "Alliance" has any other member than Meredith? --Kibomt (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just found two more sources via Factiva which are more recent than the 2004 Globe and Mail article. An op/ed piece by Gordon Chong published in January 2006 begins "The GTA Faith Alliance, a coalition of about 40 multi-faith leaders chaired by the Rev. Don Meredith, has given Toronto a rare and precious opportunity that must not be squandered." Editorial Helping youth help themselves; Offer support but instill family values, says Gordon Chong Gordon Chong 763 words 19 January 2006 The Toronto Star ONT A18 English Copyright (c) 2006 The Toronto Star

and a news article in the same paper:

"Meredith created the GTA alliance of about 40 multi-faith leaders. They operate behind the scenes, trying to get politicians to work on the issue of crime, and families - especially fathers - focused on their children. He organized next week's visit by Rev. Eugene Rivers, one of the architects of the so-called Boston Miracle, which saw police and pastors working together in the 1990s, forcing homicide rates to drop dramatically, although recent cutbacks in community programs led to another increase in crime."

News Faith in ending violence; 'We are not going to sit back and let 2006 become like 2005'; City's church leaders pray, then announce extensive plan Response to gangs includes 400 mentors for at-risk youth Moira Welsh Toronto Star 881 words 3 January 2006 The Toronto Star ONT B01 English Copyright (c) 2006 The Toronto Star

Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a 2007 source that states that the "Alliance" has any other member than Meredith? --Kibomt (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Toronto Star article lists several other GTA Faith Alliance members - Pastor Al Bowen, Wayne Russell pastor of Liberty Christian Church and evangelist Brian Warren. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for the additional info. Without some kind of summary of the opposing argument, I don't see what the issue is. Is it the source, the weight? While I agree that the website only listing one member is a bit odd, the site says its being revised and he is in the middle of an election, so maybe they took names down to avoid implying political support. However, reliable sources are reliable sources. Phyesalis (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a 2007 source that states that the "Alliance" has any other member than Meredith? --Kibomt (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You thought the source from 2004 was too old so I found two sources from 2006 - now you want a source from 2007 - what do you think has happened in the past year to change things? If I find a source from July 2007 will you then ask me for one from 2008? It's starting to look like you've got an idee fixe and will just never be satisfied. Given that outside editors have been brought in and none support your position I suggest it's time you drop this until and unless you find a third party source that supports your position. I'm not going to argue this anymore. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No Reggie. It is very simple. As of today Meredith's GTA Faith Alliance web site contradicts all your previous sources and lists him as the only current member of the Alliance. We are going in circles. What part of this do you not understand? I am suggesting as Phyesalis understood that in order to say that the "Alliance" consists of anyone other than Meredith, you need a current source, not one from 2004 or 2006. All that you have shown to this point is that there may have been other members of the Alliance in the past. I agree, and have not challenged that, but as for current members, I see no evidence of anyone other than the Rev. Don. I will leave this to you to decide what to do, but I truly don't understand your position. --Kibomt (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been perfectly clear. If you want to say in the article (or use words that infer) that Meredith is the only member you'll need a third party source. Otherwise, things remain as they are. Also, read the article carefully - it doesn't say that the Alliance has 40 members in 2008, it says it was founded with 40 members. You've shown me nothing to convince me that needs to change and if you read Phyesalis' later post she says "OK, that sounds reasonable." I really mean it this time, I'm not going to argue this any further until and unless you provide something new. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, you are both valued members of the community. This has been a relatively civil discussion so far. Kibomt brings up some valid points, however, the article as it stands states, "the GTA Faith Alliance which was founded in February 2003 as [a] joint effort of about 40 religious leaders focussing on the issue of youth violence..." The article doesn't actually state anything about the number of members currently in the alliance. If the article makes no assertions about the current number of members, there is no reason to provide current documentation. However, it might be helpful if there were some expanded quotes in the references, particularly the paper refs. Have I missed or misunderstood anything? Phyesalis (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have less time now because the holidays are over but if you tell me which news articles you'd like to see more of tell me which one and I'll pull it off Lexis or Factiva and either email you a full copy or post an extended excerpt to the talk page. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to say this differenty. The Rev. Don's "Alliance" web site lists him as the only current member. Surely, the onus is on anyone who wants to assert or imply a greater number of current members in the "Alliance" to provide a single independant source to support that. I am still waiting, Reggie. --Kibomt (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the Alliance website lists him as the only member with a biography page; you are assuming that means he's the only member. There's a crucial difference and that's why your evidence is insufficient on which to base a statement in the article about the Alliance's current membership figures. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Kibomt's statement: "the onus is on anyone who wants to assert or imply a greater number of current members in the "Alliance".

As has been pointed out a few times now the article actually makes no assertions about the GTA Faith Alliance's current membership nor is anything implied. Do you have a proposal for a specific change to be made to the article? If so, what? Please tell me what words or sentence you want to add or what words or sentences you want to remove. Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For the nth time, I want the article to say that the "Alliance" has one member which is Meredith, the only current one listed on the site. Why this is too complex for you to understand baffles me. --99.232.91.154 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand, I just disagree:) - it's not that your evidence is "too complex" it is that it's based on original research and supposition (more than that, a leap of logic) and thus is not acceptable. As well, despite other people coming into the discussion, no one else supports including your conclusions in the article. Also, I don't understand how you can say that the GTA Faith Alliance website is not a reliable source for the fact that Meredith is ordained or leads a congregation in Richmond Hill while, simultaneously, insisting that the website is a reliable source for your claim that the GTA Faith Alliance has only one member. If, as you contend, the website cannot be used as a source then this means that your claim that the alliance has only one member has no reliable source since the only evidence you have for that claim comes from that website. In other words, you need another source for your claim. I've asked you for another source several times and you've yet to produce one. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tories have issued a press release and biography of Meredith which says he was ordained in 2006.[5] While campaign literature shouldn't be taken as gospel (so to say) when writing biographies parties and candidates have gotten into serious trouble in the past for falsifying credentials (in Canada at least one MP was expelled from caucus for lying about a degree and others have been dumped as party candidates for similar fabrications in their bio) so I think it's reasonable to assume that basic information about things like employment, degrees earned, schools attended, ordinations etc should be taken as accurate until and unless evidence arises proving otherwise. Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok so he was ordained in 2006. Now do you have any independant support for the existence of his "church" in Richmond Hill that cannot be found in Google and is not mentioned in his official bio? --Kibomt (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's the same source as above. "Ordained a minister in 2006, Don is currently the volunteer senior pastor of a Pentecostal congregation in Richmond Hill, Ontario."[6] If I may engage in my own supposition (and I'm not suggesting putting this in the article) the fact that he is a volunteer senior pastor suggests that this is not as of yet a "bricks and mortar" church but rather one that has no paid staff or clergy and meets in rented (or donated) halls or even in someone's home which would explain why they aren't in the phone book or in possession of a website. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your supposition. The church does not exist. You have to admit, I think, that a volunter pastor ordained sometime last year (e.g. November or December perhaps?) with a church that does not (yet?) exist is a very different proposition than what you started with by using the Rev. Don's "Alliance" of one web site as your primary source. It is interesting to note that you have cited newspaper articles from prior to his supposed 2006 ordination referring to him as "reverend", this might be cause for some skepticism about the accuracy of his bio on the "Alliance" web site. --Kibomt (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The bio on the Alliance web site is not listed as a source for the article. But again, if you are dismissing the Alliance website as a reliable source you can't turn around and use it as a source for your claim that the Alliance has only one member.
As to the rest of your comments, first of all my supposition is not that the church "does not exist", it's that it's not a bricks and mortar church but rather one that meets in rented halls or even people's homes. This isn't unusual for a congregation that's starting out, particularly if it's evangelical. Secondly, my supposition is based on speculation and Original Research so it can't be used in the article:) Third, my understanding is that there are no universal rules governing use of the title "reverend". Anyone who leads a congregation can use that title (depending on the denomination, of course) and while Meredith is a Pentecostal I've seen nothing saying that he belongs to a specific Pentecostal body. Evidently, he was one of the leaders of a congregation in Scarborough and used the title of reverend on that basis. He did not become an ordained minister until 2006. All that means is that before 2006 he was an unordained minister (google it and you'll see it's quite common unordained minister). Lots of people call themselves, and are called, Reverend without having a formal license or recognized ordination - again this is quite common in Pentecostalism which considers itself a "movement" and is far less formal in terms of organization and has many congregations that don't have a formal affiliation to a particular Pentecostal demonination and just "spring up". It's not unusual among evangelicals, Pentecostals in particular, for a person to be moved by religious conviction to go out and form his own independent congregation and, as the leader or a leader of the congregation style himself "reverend". I think you're trying too hard to play "gotcha" with Meredith so you're filtering everything through the worst possible light - you are always assuming the worst which is not what we're supposed to be doing as editors. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I seem to recall that Jim Jones was an unordained volunteer minister of a non-existant church too. We just disagree about the role of Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia should be about biography, not hagiography. If a man is an unordained volunteer minister of a non-existant church, or a member of an "alliance" of one, then just say so, and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. I don't think editors should filter everything here through rose-coloured glasses, and having regard to your edit history elsewhere, you appear to agree with me from time to time. --Kibomt (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Jim Jones was ordained in 1964.[7] If you're going to try to smear someone by comparing him to Jim Jones at least make sure you have gotten your facts right and if you're going to make that sort of comparison there's really no point in continuing this discussion any further. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. My apologies to Jim Jones and his disciples. It is unfair to compare him to a relative novice in the volunteer pastoring business such as the Rev. Don. --Kibomt (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uninvolved user responses to RfC

  • One issue in relation to the lead appears to be what the subject is meant to be notable for. I would say as a political candidate, in which case that should be added first. A personal website is not a good source for someone's professional credentials. Is there not enough to add a short bio, with date of birth and where the subject was educated? Often at an election time local newspapers run profiles of candidates. That would be a reliable source. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The credentials (ie ordained minister) are verified through the party's website and since in Canada lying about your credentials has in the past resulted in candidates being dropped by their party or even, in one case, an elected MP being expelled from his caucus, it is reasonable to assume that the party has vetted and verified his bio. Unfortunately, while the party bio states that Meredith is ordained it doesn't state where he got his ordination from. I don't think we have any reason for doubting his personal website for that information. Meredith actually generated a lot of media for several years prior to his nomination through his work with the GTA Faith Alliance but none of these news articles (as of yet) state the source of his education. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This bio posted on the Toronto Kiwanis site does state the source of Meredith's religious education as Rhea Studies of Theology Association.[8] I should add that his party biography mentions that he also studied (not for religion) at Ryerson Polytechnic but doesn't say whether or not he graduated. At present the only fact for which we rely on the GTA Faith Alliance website is the name of his congregation in Richmond Hill, the facts that there is a congregation and that it's located in Richmond Hill are verified through other means. I'm quite happy to not mention the name of the congregation and have removed that from the article until we get a third party source. for it. Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Not sure where to start... I find Kibomt's repeated insistence for something from 2007 about the membership of GTAFA to be somewhat odd and rather pointy, especially given the obvious distain he shows for "Rev. Don." Too compare Meredith to Jim Jones, a man responsible for hundreds of deaths, is totally uncalled for, somewhat like a comparison to Hitler. I strongly suggest you tone down the rhetoric. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to keep up to date records of organizations - if news reports from 2003 indicate there were 40 members, then that is what the article should reflect. On the other hand, I find the article itself to be extremely out of balance in it's coverage of GTAFA - fully half the introductory sentence, which should be about Meredith, is about GTAFA instead. If GTAFA is that notable, they should have their own article, but in no case should it play such a large role here. Lose everything from "which was founded..." and the entire second paragraph, which is exclusively about GTAFA.
Likewise I find there to be too much about Warner. The last sentence of the first paragraph, about Warner and the AIDS Conference, has absolutely nothing to do with Meredith and should be removed, leaving only the info about how Meredith got the nod.
Finally, the fact that he own's a landscaping business, e.g. lawn mowing, is irrelevant to his notability and very out of place as a stand alone paragraph tacked onto the end of the article. It needs to be integrated into a more fleshed out bio section (there's virtually nothing else about his personal life) or removed. Pairadox (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Pairadox the web site lists Meredith as the only member of the GTAFA. I am not suggesting original research, but with respect if this guy is the only member of the "Alliance" surely that is relevant to the bio of the Rev. Don. --Kibomt (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It has been patiently explained to you, several times now, how your conclusion that Meredith is the sole member of GTAFA is original research. Please stop flogging that dead horse until and unless you have any new evidence to add (which is to say actual evidence based on something outside of the GTA Faith Alliance website and not your leap of logic based on a pull down menu). Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Pairadox given that Meredith would not have got the nod, but for the unprecedented ouster of Warner, surely how or why Warner was removed is relevant to how Meredith got the nod. --Kibomt (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think a sentence on the GTA Faith Alliance is sufficient, as the name of the Alliance doesn't incorporate its focus (gangs and guns) if kept that in but removed the the reference to it having been formed by 40 faith leaders which I've moved to a stub on the group. Reggie Perrin (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the details regarding Warner, someone else commented on this as well so I've moved the details to a footnote as they do not directly relate to the subject of this article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
They don't relate at all, and should be removed rather than just shifted to a footnote. Pairadox (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think the level of info about Warner and his relationship to Meredith is good as it is with Kibomt's edit. Enough to show how he got the nod, without going into Warner's story. Nice compromise. Pairadox (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)