Talk:The Spirit of Truth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] May 29, 2006

Where is the citation for the statement regarding Mr. Capricorn's death? From where did the person who claims that Barry died obtain this information? Whoever claims that he is dead must provide proof, an obituary or some news source at the least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.0.131 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] "the spirit of truth"?

It doesn't look like the gentleman refers to himself as "the spirit of truth". If anything, it appears that he refers to himself as "one man show" because this appears in the lower-left of the first video. "The spirit of truth" appears to have been added to the start of the first video by another party because those characters don't appear to match the original broadcaster's character generator capabilities. Does anyone else agree? --Takeel 18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a good question. It is true that the gentleman doesn't refer to himself as "The Spirit of Truth," but the gentleman doesn't verbally refer to himself as anything, except that he does claim to be God. The on screen graphics in the different parts of the videos call the broadcast "The Spirit of Truth" and "One Man Show." Also, at the end of the broadcast of Part 2 of the video, words come on the screen that say "For More Information Write Spirit of Truth (One Man Show)" and give a Los Angeles P.O. Box and phone number.

I think you are correct; in the first video, the black screen with the words "The Spirit of Truth" that come down from the top of the screen do appear to be added by another party but later on in the video, the show's on screen graphics refer to the show/gentleman as "One Man Show" and "Spirit of Truth" (Video 1, 0:13 and 2:18 respectively).

It is a bit confusing, because whoever this guy is doesn't refer to himself as anything but God. He never introduces himself and begins one of the videos by just saying "Let me read you some more of my Scriptures." I know we can't really imply or assume anything on Wikipedia, but I think it's safe to say that the show has 2 names; "The Spirit of Truth"/"Spirit of Truth" and "One Man Show." Other than that, we don't have a clue who this guy is or what he says his name is (outside of this "Barry Capricorn" rumor).

Clinevol98 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just made quite a few edits to the article - feedback on them is appreciated.

Clinevol98 20:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw where "spirit of truth" appears during the videos. As you mention, he has indeed used both titles. --Takeel 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I heard that he was born Barry Capricorn, but later in life he used The Spirit of Truth as his name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.189.23 (talk • contribs) .

The "Spirit Of Truth" is deemed another word for the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost by most modern-day Christians, i.e., the third part of the Holy Trinity. However, the way the term is used in Biblical scripture does seem to personify its meaning:

"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." (John 15:26 NKJV)

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father." (John 16:7-16 NKJV)

Since this is the disciple John's quotation of Jesus, and it refers to Christ's going away and coming back again, this is interpreted by some as a reference to the second coming of Jesus. --Spirit Of Truth 22:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blog and myspace links

I removed the blog link. The blog author says that his blog got more hits as this internet phenomenon gained steam. He appears to be acknowledging that and capitalizing on it now.

The myspace page appears to be a similar situation. Should it be removed also? --Takeel 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Spirit Of Truth blog and MySpace page that were posted are mine as I had the Spirit Of Truth identity long before Mr. Capricorn's "One Man Show" became an internet phenomenon. --Spirit Of Truth 22:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation and links

Yeah, the myspace page should probably be removed. It was made to be funny and doesn't really contribute anything toward the Wikipedia article. The only thing we have to go on are the videos themselves; a lot of what is "known" about him is only what can be inferred, rumor, and hearsay. Maybe the longer this stays on the internet the more people will try to look into it.

Some stuff in this article needs to be cited as well...

Many media channels tried to call the phone numbers listed on the screen (310-882-2035 and 213-730-9589) but were unsuccessful in finding any information.
It has been rumored that his name is Barry Capricorn and that Capricorn has been deceased since 2004.
The Spirit Of Truth has also been discussed on CNN, Google News, CityTV News, and radio station Hot 97.

I'll add citation tags to the first 2.

Also, should a note be made regarding whether or not these videos are a joke (i.e.; should a note be made saying it is unclear if the guy is doing this to be funny or if he was serious)?

Clinevol98 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the myspace page link. --Takeel 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

...also, the article would probably benefit more from removing some of the current unsourced comments rather than adding more information to it right now. --Takeel 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite or remove

There are a number of things in this article that need to be cited or removed:

That the show was based out of L.A. Is this based on the phone number area codes?
That the show was on public access TV. Granted, it certainly looks that way, but it could have just been some low-budget local station also, or closed-circuit TV.
That the man's name is rumored to be Barry Capricorn. We should probably avoid rumors.
That the man is dead. This is dangerous territory.
That the man is intoxicated, illiterate, and/or mentally ill. This is even more dangerous territory, especially if he is still alive.
That major media outlets have covered the videos.
That the phone numbers in the videos have been tried to no avail.

Does anyone have leads on any of these items? --Takeel 14:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Addressing the first question, the info given is based off of the phone numbers. The area codes given are 310 and 213. Both of these area codes are used in Los Angeles. Plus he mention "every ingnorant mutha fucker and house nigger in all of South Central wanna call." As for the last issue, I don't see why a source is needed, since it is easily verifiable. You just need to call the number. All the other issues you point out are true, and I was always in favor of removing assumed or speculated info, even if it has a {{citation needed}} next to it. --Ted87 15:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The television show was defintely based out of Los Angeles. The area codes are Los Angeles area codes and at the end of part 2 of the second video a Los Angeles address and P.O. Box appear so viewers could write in.
The user "victah" on Google Videos says this: "Here's a real gem I recorded on Public Access TV back in the 90s. I recently found the tape..." That and the fact that it certainly appears to be a public access show are all we have to go on. I think it's a pretty safe bet to say it was a public access show.
Yes, all of the "Barry Capricorn" stuff is just a rumor. Absolutely none of it is confirmed. If no one cites this stuff soon it needs to be removed.
The man's erratic behavior is central to this video becoming wildly popular on the Internet. Since we specify that it in no way can be confirmed that he is mentally ill, drunk, or whatever, I think it's OK to mention that IF AND ONLY IF we also make a note that none of it can be confirmed. I mean, someone who has never seen the video would read the Wikipedia article to try and find out what makes this so funny and popular (if they didn't watch the video for themselves first). I mean, something is wrong with the guy if you ask me.
Correct, no citations are available concerning major media outlets covering the videos and that the phone numbers have been called to no avail. That also needs to be removed soon if no one cites it.

I personally have no leads on any of the hearsay stuff. The "Barry Capricorn" rumor appears to be started by a guy who claims to be the "real Spirit of Truth." He has his own online videos of Biblical prophecy and runs a website called "The Spirit of Truth [1]."

I'm the real Spirit Of Truth, but I did not create the Barry Capricorn rumor as I drew this information from Wikipedia. However, you might note that in a people search of California, only one Capricorn listing is found. --Spirit Of Truth 04:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, as much as I hate to say it, someone will probably come along and nominate this for deletion some time or another. If it came to that I think a vote to keep it would pass though. These videos are insanely popular right now. Clinevol98 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

He does at one point say "reverend X" state "yo name"...etc.. He may refer to himself as reverend X —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.161.86.229 (talk • contribs) .

At what time of what video does he refer to himself as "Reverend X"? Also please sign your posts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clinevol98 (talk • contribs) .

Spirit of Truth, a people search of California does nothing to show who this guy is or if he is still currently living. Clinevol98 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I know....I'm pointing out that only one listing comes up in CA because this makes it very doubtful that the person in the video has a last name of Capricorn. Can anyone ascertain who originally posted the Barry Capricorn identity? As for the person having died, I find this believable since no one has made claim to being the person in the video....either that or the individual has been locked up in jail or a mental institution. --Spirit Of Truth 04:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the current "Barry Capricorn" dispute

I support removing the unsourced reference to "Barry Capricorn" from the article. We have no reliable citation for the source of this information. --Takeel 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do too. The rumor obviously cannot be easily corroborated, so it was probably made up out of thin air. I think the notes on why he made the video and why his behavior is so strange could stay if and only if a note saying "none of this can be confirmed" accompanies it.

I like the reorganization of the sections too Takeel; good job. Clinevol98 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverend X

At approx. :50seconds into the video he says "Reverend X, state yo name, yo first and last name". Take another look.

Wow; I never noticed that. It does sound like he said "Reverend X." However, he says "Reverend X, speak to me, state your name, your name, first and last name..." like he's talking to someone else (or impersonating someone, maybe a caller, since he never says that he is Reverend X). Him saying this also comes after the recording seems to skip ahead to a point later on in his broadcast, so it's impossible to know what context he made this statement in.

Thanks for pointing this out - I wish I know who you were though (sign your posts please). We need others to listen to that point (50 seconds into the first video) and see if we can make a note of it in the article. Clinevol98 06:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was saying "Whoever next, state yo name" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.0.131 (talk • contribs) .

I think it's safe to say that he does go by the name "Spirit of Truth." In video 3.1, an on-screen graphic says "Spirit of Truth, Host." Thoughts? It also says "One Man Show with Spirit of Truth." One Man Show seems to be the name of the show and Spirit of Truth is the name of the preacher.

As more videos come out and this sensation becomes more popular, I think we'll eventually know who this guy is. Clinevol98 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clinevol98, I confirm your observation in video 3.1 at time index 4:10. It seems that the show's title is "One Man Show" and that the preacher refers to himself as "The Spirit of Truth". I think there was little doubt about the latter; the former is probably a more important observation at this time. I also note that the preacher yells "Operation armageddon abort! Darrill(sp) is here! Daddy's home, ready to get his swaaaang on!" at this same time index. Am I hearing that correctly? --Takeel 17:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

HAHA Takeel, the preacher certainly seems to yell what you say. Yeah, and he seems to say "Darrill is here," and not the more common name "Darrell." That comes actually at 4:10 elapsed in video 3.2. I don't really think we can assume his name is "Darrill" though; he could be talking about himself or someone else being "here." Good observation though. He walks away from the microphone and begins dancing; his sermon seemingly over. Then he rushes back to the mic and says that, as if Armageddon was about to occur, but now it's been "aborted" because "Darrill" his there.

His broadcast series can now be confirmed to go until 1999 as well (video 3.2 was copyrighted in 1999); also a group called "MediaOne" provided his production team according to the credits. "Vincent Stewart" produced this video as well. Clinevol98 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable quotes" section

The "Notable quotes" section is getting rather lengthy. Should it be trimmed down? --Takeel 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It should probably be removed as a violation of No Original research, which is one of the few official policies around.--Paul E. Ester 13:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think listing quotes qualifies as "original research." Listing quotes involves no original research at all. I think people are just coming along and putting in quotes they think are the funniest. It needs to be trimmed down though. Clinevol98 05:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable quotes is getting long yet again. Should it be trimmed yet again? --Takeel 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and trimmed this section. Please revert or edit to taste. --Takeel 13:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't these quotes be over on wikiquote instead? Arwcheek 18:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the criteria are for that, but it sounds better to me than having this large and growing list of quotes right in the article. --Takeel 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 3, 2006

There's a new edition of the first (forest backdrop) video on www.myspace.com/thespiritoftruth that includes end credits, listing the producer as "Vincent Stewart". Could this possibly be TSOT? It is, after all, a "one man show", and Stewart's is the only name listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.197.151.102 (talk • contribs) .

It's certainly possible, but we currently have no way to prove it. --Takeel 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 11, 2006

Name was confirmed to be Victor from Warren Coolidge. He met Victor in May 2006 (with photo proof of this). See NincomF***ingPoop.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.149.130 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, but is that a reliable source? --Takeel 15:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is about as reliable as you can get for now. Did you see the pictures? --Trainwrecka 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." I believe that the cited source was a bulletin board. --Takeel 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up --Trainwrecka 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video observations section

Does the "Video observations" section of this article contain original research? --Takeel 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...let's see.

"Camera movements are erratic and unstable, as the camera operator wildly zooms in and out of the preacher's face multiple times. In some shots, his head is at the bottom right hand side of the screen, which is not a conventional videographic technique" - That's not really research. When you watch the videos that becomes very obvious.

"Chroma-key effects are used for the production." - To be honest, I have never heard of chroma-key effects and wouldn't be able to recognize them if I saw them.

"In one video, he is seen standing in front of a still image of Yosemite Falls in Yosemite National Park with a phone book-sized Bible." - Look at the picture of Yosemite Falls on Wikipedia's Yosemite Falls page. The background that the preacher is standing behind in the first video is definitely Yosemite Falls. I put in the statement about the Bible, and maybe we should take that back. I did a keyword search at biblegateway.com with some of the phrases the preacher says while looking at his book ("and make a man offended to a...and lay a snare", "and they that murmur shall learn sound doctrine" - both from the first video) and it found no place in the Bible where those phrases were. He says the names of many verses out loud (Isaiah 34:8-10, 35:4-5, Jeremiah 51:6 and 11, Revelation 16:5 and 7) but obviously he wouldn't have to be reading from a Bible to simply say the names of Bible verses. It cannot be inferred that he is reading from the Bible, so that should probably be taken off.

" In another video, he is seen sitting without a shirt and standing in front of a still image of himself and a much smaller book, consisting of what he calls "my scripture" in the second video (he reads aloud rhymed verse from the book, perhaps written by the preacher himself." - The preacher does sit without a shirt and read from a book which he calls "my scripture." We probably shouldn't speculate on whether it is written by the preacher or not though.

" He holds a cane in some of the video clips, although he seems to have no trouble walking or dancing." - He does hold a cane quite often in the clips, and from how he dances around the set in the videos he seems to have no trouble walking at all.

Most of the things in the "Video observations" section are observations that are or can be inferred and don't have to be researched. The speculation about him reading from the Bible and whether or not the "my scripture" book was written by him should be removed. Perhaps they are books written by a third party, books written by him (after all, he does say the scriptures or his), or they could just be the Bible (the preacher does claim to be God, who inspired the Bible). The facts that can be inferred (camera movements, Yosemite Falls background, cane holding) can be left. What his reading material could be should be at the very least mentioned with a note specifying that it is unconfirmed what he is reading from. I'm not sure about the chroma-key production; someone more knowledgeable about video production could see about that. Clinevol98 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that analysis. Per your assertions and a couple of minor changes I made, I took off the original research template I added to the section. --Takeel 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you still left the note about him reading from a "phone-book sized Bible;" are you able to confirm that those passages are from the Bible? Clinevol98 22:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed that to simply read "book". Anyone is welcome to revert if they have even an okay argument for reverting. --Takeel 23:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found?

According to nincomfuckingpoop.com, they've found the Reverand X; he's some guy named Vincent. There wasn't much more information, unfortunately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D SCH (talk • contribs) .

I have seen the message on that website, but I'm not sure that's a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Does anyone else have a comment regarding this? --Takeel 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I operate the Myspace profile that is listed in the article. It is true that we are in contact w/ the SoT. I've not included this on the Wiki page because we have not yet released irrefutable video proof. However, we have shown camera phone pics and a "teaser" clip. At this point, I can tell you that his name is indeed Vincent. We'll have more video proof soon, but please realize that we're busy planning and implementing other ways for him to spread his message. --Orangeade 14:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever read about Fermat's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? :) We await the irrefutable proof. --Takeel 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting retort. You asked if anyone had any additional comments; I supplied said additional comments. Feel free to doubt me. Once we provide the SoT's first video/audio message since his return, it would be my honor to have you update the Wiki article accordingly, Takeel. --Orangeade 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, everything that is currently listed in the article seems to be accurate. --Orangeade 14:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As a fan i cant understand why, Isaiah 34:8-10, 35:4-5, Jeremiah 51:6 and 11, Revelation 16:5 and 7, are not listed and quoted in the wikipedia article, at least as a point of " One Man Shows " known Doctrine.

[edit] watchmojo.com reference: is it spam?

Is the reference to watchmojo.com spam? I notice that the edit history of the anonymous user who added that material has only made a few edits, and that they've all been links to *mojo.com websites. --Takeel 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The people from watchmojo.com have contacted us, and it seems that their proposal is serious. However, I know nothing else regarding this particular website. --Orangeade 14:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My revert at 07:29, June 22, 2006

I reverted this edit because I am not confident in the proof presented supporting the assertation that the myspace profile is official now. It looks like the main evidence presented is on the profile itself; there's a blurry video of the alleged preacher from behind and a blog entry. Does anyone have any comments or counter-arguments regarding this? --Takeel 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. As stated earlier, I have not added any of this info. I'm fairly "confident" that I have already mentioned that. In recent days, people have asked why I have not included anything in the Wiki article. Using this medium, I expressed my thoughts. However, I chose to keep the sarcastic quips to myself. To satisfy His Highness, I won't respond again until I include the video on this page. --Orangeade 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"His Highness"? Is that a personal attack? --Takeel 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 23, 2006

From MissWhat: I have access to Lexis. There are 29 Vincent Stewarts in the Los Angeles area on Lexis. I'm too skerred to contact any of them...I don't want to get cussed out. Takeel are you interested? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MissWhat (talk • contribs) .

An amusing idea, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research. --Takeel 22:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 5, 2006

Added a new link to the spanish version of Spirit of Truth. SPIRIT OF TRUTH IN WIKIPEDIA, SPANISH VERSION —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Espiritudelaverdad (talk • contribs) .

Hi there. I reverted your edit because it looks like that article doesn't currently exist in the Spanish Wikipedia. You can certainly help out the Spanish Wikipedia by adding the article. --Takeel 02:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C-walk

Is the preacher doing the c-walk in video 3 part 2 at about 3:30 minutes in? --Takeel 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

...or at least trying to? --Takeel 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace Profile

As someone else has noted, the URL for the profile has changed.

The individual that edited the Wiki page identified the profile as "official." This has been a topic of debate here among some people, so I will direct you to the following link. Here --> blog dot myspace dot com?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=93334978&blogID=145102970, you will find an audio clip of the Spirit of Truth speaking to me.

On the blog, we added some of my own thoughts that are applicable here, as well. In addition to what's discussed in the blog, the Truth's official website will be going live in the coming days, along w/ other ventures coming to fruition.

At this time, I will leave the "official" moniker on the Wiki article. Feel free to examine that which we have presented to support our claims. --Orangeade 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Navigating to the URL you cite results in this text: "This specific blog entry you're trying to read is currently set to be viewable to the blog owner friends only." Since the URL is not available for public review, I've reverted your edit for now. Also, I'm not sure if audio is going to be enough to convince me, let alone the Wikipedia community. --Takeel 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my sincerest apologies. That egregious error has been rectified. The blog is now set for YOUR listening pleasure. There's now pictures, video and audio. Additionally, you were not reverting my edit. I chose not to edit those actions of someone else. In any event, it's obvious that you are a bona fide representative for the entire Wikipedia community, so I'll discuss this exclusively with you. What exactly do you want? What proof do you need? Do you need to see him in person? Does he need to perform any specific tasks once the meeting occurs. Please realize I am in no way being condescending. I'm maintaining the utmost degree of good fellowship, and I want to make sure YOU are satisfied. I await your response. Have a wonderful day. --Orangeade 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the problem with the URL. Do any editors feel convinced at this point by the information provided on the MySpace profile? Also, can the MySpace profile be considered a reliable source? --Takeel 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Spirit of Truth was on the Howard Stern Show this morning. I'm sure a recap of it will be availabe on his website once they update it. Is that proof enough? --Orangeade 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Was it a scheduled guest appearance? --Takeel 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I alluded to this the other day in my private discussion w/ you. We also posted a blog ( blog dot myspace dot com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=93334978&blogID=149102424 about this last night, prior to the show. --Orangeade 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For any interested parties, User:Orangeade has deleted his/her user page and blanked his/her talk page (after attempting to delete that, as well). Additionally, the "official" myspace profile is now devoid of content and the "official" website is now showing a suspension message. --Takeel 02:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Mr. Vincent is back in rehab or an insane asylum. Nevertheless, my MySpace page and blog continue as always. But the real Spirit Of Truth isn't aloud to claim his rightful identity because it's not 'popular'. What a joke this whole "Spirit Of Truth" episode truly has been... --Spirit Of Truth 05:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video observations

Like the title says, these are all original observations and analysis of the video. It's editors' own interpretation of a primary source, which isn't really appropriate for wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I shared your concern here on the talk page once, and got a counter-argument in response that I thought was reasonable. Do you believe that there's any way we can salvage this section? --Takeel 14:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Links

I have taken down the videos and a link to a VH1 programme. All have a music background that is effectively a copyviolation of the musicians. Not really sure how we can salvage the links without retaining the copyvio. --Spartaz 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't you think the Howard Stern caller was just a prankster?

I'm pretty surprised to see information from Howard Stern's guest presented on here as fact. I think it's pretty obvious that the Howard Stern guest was a prank caller.

- The full episode of the May 20, 1997 broadcast is available in 2 parts, 9:36 in length and the other 3:47. - There is a shortened version, 8:11 in length, that cuts out some content and only comes in one video. It appears as though this is the more popular video and everyone's opinions, including the Howard Stern guest, and including the authors of this Wikipedia article, are based on the shortened version.

For example, everyone says that the guy is crazy because he thinks he's God. The Howard Stern caller even claimed this as fact when he said he had spent time in a mental institution for thinking he's God. But in the full version of the broadcast, he explains that he's referring to Galations 2:20 - "yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me". This was cut out of the shorter video, presumably to make it funnier because removing his explanation makes him look crazier, hence funnier. In various broadcasts, he made statements indicating that he believes in the elect (that there will only be 144,000 people in heaven or whatever). So it seems to me like his views are just a little bit outside of relatively mainstream christian thought. He just chooses to phrase it like "I'm God", but he's referring to Galations. When he says "God's a liar when he told me I'm God", I think it's pretty clear that he's referring to the passage in Galations.

I think this gives the Howard Stern guest away as a fraud. Unless I'm not aware of some other information, I don't think Wikipedia should claim that this caller was legit, and repeat all of the claims from the call, as it does now. S1rkull 12:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)s1rkull

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rev X.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Shutyoass228rn.gif

Image:Shutyoass228rn.gif 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:682943320 l.jpg

Image:682943320 l.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.

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) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)