Talk:Jerry Falwell/Archive 1

message: It is clear from the fact that editing has been disabled that Wikipedia (or the moderators or whoever runs this place) is pro-Falwell. Otherwise, comments would not have been turned off. There is no way to add some of Falwell's most famous controversial comments, including:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/
Too bad Wikipedia and it's self-proclaimed moderators try to censor history.
----
Those commments are at the very top of the controversial section. I think you're wrong in your accusations.  Lizard1959 00:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They removed the audio I had of the event. Coolgamer 19:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we're definitely pro-Falwell. Especially me. -- Y not? 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfair protection of this page

message: In his death section someone has written that in the hospital's press release it stated 'the world is better off with him dead'. This is obviously patently false. I am unable to correct this, but perhaps someone else will.
:Yes, how is it that the page is protected, but someone could put a mean-spirited remark like that in less than four hours after the man died?  And putting it where it is--where the citation seems to apply to the remark--is tantamount to a lie, since it could lead people to think that the press release made the remark.  It all must have been done by someone who is allowed to edit protected articles.   140.147.160.78 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted that one.  Since the page is semi-protected, registered users can still edit it.  As for how someone could do it, Falwell was a controversial person whose opinions displeased a large number of people.  To put it bluntly, he was loathed by the people he loathed.  I personally have no great love for his opinions, but I'm not willing to see vandalism ruin an article about him.  It does need to be left only semi-protected, though, so that new information about the circumstances of his death can be added as it becomes available.  I'll try to keep an eye on it (as I've noticed a couple others doing as well). The Dark 19:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it was reverted, even as I was writing this.  I think you slighly misunderstood my question about how it could be done, but you answered it anyway with the comment about semi-protected; I'm not really conversant on how these things work here.  I saw a protected page with a remark like that, and figured that if the page is protected it must be an inside vandalism job.  140.147.160.78 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "he was loathed by the people he loathed."? Not only. I'm as straight as a die, & I loathed him as a hypocrite & demagogue.    Trekphiler 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trolling/Vandalism

message: what the heck i was the first one to edit the page to reflect the death posted by AP and i was reprimanded saying do not post any death until confirmed by a major news agency... isnt MSNBC AND AP a major news agency????
Well he is definitely dead, according to several major news organizations, so I say as long as you can source it, at that shouldn't be too hard, go ahead and put info on his death back in.70.59.40.20 19:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial Edits Section

message: Can someone provide a source for the following segment of the article:
"Jerry Falwell was a vocal supporter of racial segregation during the 1950s and 1960s."
Thanks.
LegCircus 14:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Racial Segregation Supporter

message: I have no personal allegiance with Falwell, and feel he is inconsequential and unrepresentative of evangelical Christianity at large, but his current Wiki entry is egregiously lopsided.  I know the barbaric level of hatred most secularists harbor for this man, but come on--a list of his worst quotes at the end?  If you're going to masquerade as a neutral contributor, at least balance this out a little bit; right now it's nothing but a showcase of his embarrassments, public and private, his most radical advocations, his shortcomings and failures, most alarming quotes and wild speculation, among other things.  
I won't even attempt to correct this entry because I know my idle time is nowhere near that of this article's authors, but if you can absolutely not refrain from slandering him, at least make the libel presentably subtle.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chipdouglas (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 January 2005.
Falwell frequently made controversial statements for the apparent purpose of getting quoted by the media.  They belong. Gregohio 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lopsided

message: I am no supporter of this man.
However, this article represents a bias against Rev. Falwell and other persons.  I cite the other comments on this discussion, the tone and organisation of the article, and my following criticism for placing this article under NPOV dispute.
"He advocates that the United States abolish its public education system, replacing it with church-run schools, similar to the school voucher proposals by the Bush administration."
Mr. Falwell and the Southern Baptist's views on the public school system are very different from those of the Bush administration.  This connection should not have been drawn.  It is one thing to allow tax money to pay for other education venues; it is entirely another to abolish the public school system and place the education of children as the responsibility of churches.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kbolino (talk • contribs) 08:34, 21 January 2005.
Actually, it takes an unnecessary jab at him with the waterslide incident at PTL, but otherwise leaves him unscathed in that whole incident. I would say that, waterslide aside, it is far too positive in his involvement in PTL. He learned about Bakker's affair, went down to PTL, pressured Bakker out of the seat and put himself in it, took over PTL, closed down PTL, and took some choice broadcasting assets with him. And it was no secret that Bakker's ministry was a rival demonination to begin with. One, for example, that was too tolerant of gays.
The entire section on PTL gives Falwell a "pass" and just brings up a silly, and irrelevant, minor detail. Why Falwell went to PTL and what he ultimately did there should be what is in that section. --68.229.247.168 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article Lacks Neutrality 

message: Falwell has been on both sides of libel cases. In 1984, he was forced to pay gay activist Jerry Sloan $5,000 after losing a court battle. During a TV debate in Sacramento, California, Falwell denied calling the gay-oriented Metropolitan Community Churches "brute beasts" and "a vile and Satanic system" that will "one day be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven."
:When Sloan insisted he had a tape, Falwell promised $5,000 if he could produce it. Sloan did, Falwell refused to pay, and Sloan successfully sued. Falwell appealed, with his attorney charging that the Jewish judge in the case was prejudiced. He lost again and was forced to pay an additional $2,875 in sanctions and court fees.
This is not an action in libel, this is an action in contract.  It is unlikely that Sloan could have recovered in libel for these statements, both for lack of standing and also because this would likely be considered pure "opinion" under the common law. 24.215.155.9 13:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Libel

message: I don't understand this sentence in context:
:Since Canadian law forbids comments that incite or advocate hatred toward any "identifiable group," including homosexuals, broadcast tapes sent to Canada are edited to remove any such comments.
Is Sloan Canadian?  The court which awarded the money?
When read with the text which comes before and after, this sentence seems not to belong in this section or on this page.
Joelsmith 04:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Law?

message: I noticed no mention of one of his latest controversial saying. Ofcourse, I'm refering to his statement advocating the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Giovanni33 08:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of Falwell's avocating the assasination of democractically elected leaders?

message: The Sun Myung Moon Scandal - 
Donations for TV time - 
Clinton Chronicles - 
Estimated Personal Wealth - 
Selling moon-shine while running a alcohol rehabilitation center.  There are other dealings that he was involved with but I don't have the time or interest to follow all of them.  (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006
It seems this talk page as well as the article itself have more of a bias against the man, rather than adhering to NPOV.  If if were almost any other public figure, would the encyclopedia article be so filled with his failures and offensive remarks?  Now, there certainly is a place for it here, considering Falwell's track record in the public arena.  But I think it would be worthwhile for someone to take a long, hard look at why we feel the need to "dig up dirt" about this guy, rather than set out doing the job that is required of us under Wikipeida's own policies.  Hello?  Anyone?
:NPOV doesn't mean "50% positive statements", it means neutral... if the overwhelming amount of info on him is negative, that's still abiding by NPOV unless an effort was made to hide positive info.  Insisting on 50/50 is in itself a violation of NPOV.  Just food for thought.
::I agree with whoever posted this.  Please refer to WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which is the policy in question. Kasreyn 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Falwell's Nefarious Dealings

message: "Labor unions should study and read the Bible instead of asking for more money. When people get right with God, they are better workers." 
Does anyone know of the original citation for this quote?  A google search brings up very little. The closest thing I could find was The Right Wing Attack on the American Labor Movement  , which references People for the American Way in the footnotes.  
George100 06:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Labor Unions Quote

message: "Falwell was criticized for those remarks, and for calling the United States a Christian nation, and for saying the devil is Jewish."  seems some evidence of this particular quote in google 
:That's just pure misrepresentation of what Rev. Falwell said. Falwell never said that the "devil is Jewish". Your link gives no support to that comment. He did say that he thought that the "anti-Christ" was likely Jewish because Jesus was a Jew. The anti-Christ would be trying to fool people that he was the new Christ and in order to do that, he would have to be Jewish. Big difference. As for the "Christian nation" comment, Falwell was referring to the principles upon which the U.S. was founded, not that it is a nation only for Christians. Again, big difference. Falwell has always been pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. Sadly you misunderstood. Jtpaladin 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did say that he thought the Antichrist would probably arrive within a decade and be Jewish, after a huge outcry he explained himself but the controversy is still relevant. Especially to Jewish folks. Benjiboi 07:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past Antisemitism 

message: We have way too much editing going on the page right now.  WatchingYouLikeAHawk 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be wise - There will be a flood here soon, as I just heard a rumor that he has passed and they are holding the announcement to give the family time.  --BenBurch 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DOD has already been added into the header. Dirtysocks 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And reverted until the media confirms it. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right On.  This is still a BLP.  --BenBurch 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN Headline news said he has died (from AP) 69.242.51.51 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CBS Radio confirms.  --BenBurch 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberty University also confirms!  Told you he was dead!!130.156.29.61 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand that Wiki is not a news service - we don't break news here, we wait for news to be confirmed before changing something like this.  Otherwise the amount of speculation here would make the encyclopedia unusable. --BenBurch 17:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get this page re-protected?  Fallwell was a very controversial person, and the vandalism is becoming rampant, like the "bowel obstruction" edit.  --CWSensation 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing speed

message: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18679412/?GT1=9155 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.48.8 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The banner at the top of cnn.com confirms Dr. Falwell passed away at the age of 73. --BigDT 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, many of us have personal opinions about this man, myself included. However, for our own integrity, we need to make sure our WP article stays NPOV and factual. I removed the unsourced statement "He is reported to have died from complications arising from a severe bowel obstruction, and I urge every editor to help keep the WP article limited to verified facts as this develops. Vaoverland 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please reserve comments like this for another place.  This is a talk page for discussion of the article itself, not our thoughts on his death.  While I personally have my own views (which I'm reserving for my blog) about this event, I know this isn't the place.  Let's try to keep the clutter down, please?  --CWSensation 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there is no PTL any more. (The PTL Club). So much for a "reliable source". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaoverland (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be Astanhope (look under "history" of this page.) He apparently has a quaint fondness for bowel obstructions. Must remind him of his childhood.Simplemines 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Lynchburg General Hospital by the same User:Astanhope user also needs to be monitored. I have warned him that if he inserts this in any article without a reliable source he will be blocked. - Nunh-huh 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the slur in the Lynchburg General Hospital article. Hopefully Astanhope's medical team will have a similar facility removing HIS anal obstructions.Simplemines 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Being dead doesn't make a guy into a saint. Being on Wikipedia means it has to be NPOV, but there's no need to whitewash what he was. Kolindigo 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why's this all being discussed here Death Confirmed? Start a new Discussion section. GoodDay 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Confirmed 

message: Nor am I saying it does. But we should not be putting lies such as bowel obstructions on a crediable site. We shouldnt be putting our personal opinions in the article. We are here to inform, and the only way to properly inform is to be unbiased. As a gay and Catholic (both things he didnt care for) I feel strongly against him, but sitting here and being hateful to a recently deceased person however evil they may be or perceived to be is wrong. Any decent Human Being would refrain from such childish immature behavior.Shreveport Paranormal 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there's way too much vandalism. PS- I've added a 'new' discussion title, seperate from the 'Death confirmed' title. GoodDay 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism since Falwell's death

message: This article will receive national attention.  Now is not the time to start adding unsourced trivia.  Indeed, now is the time to review this article and kick it up a notch or two in quality.  Rklawton 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Did he actually say this, or is it just a perception, that the public has, that he said it?  I've been looking, and I can't find any verifiable sources.  The closes I came was that someone wrote, or someone said that he said it. Leon7 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God is a Republican? 

message: I did not care for Jerry Fallwell beings I am Gay And Catholic. He didnt speak well of either group. Despite my personal dislike of him, the man did just pass away. Also this is a place that is supposed to give accurate information. The articles arent there for your personal opinion. The only way we can keep to the purpose of wikipedia is to remain unbiased. I ask that you all keep the personal stuff out of the article itself, the man just died. Please have some decency. Shreveport Paranormal 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine the vandalism at Bill Donohue's article, when he passes on. I'm in agreement, personal feelings towards Falwell, don't belong in the article. GoodDay 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Same with the talk page. It's here to discuss the article, not personal feelings about the man. --Elliskev 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep personal feelings out of the article. (His Recent Death Foremost) 

message: I'm going to start cutting down on the links in EL, if there are no objections. Kolindigo 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Elliskev 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive links 

message: The section here is a bit misleading.  I found an article in TIME from Sep 02 1985 which states that Falwell opposed apartheid, albeit from a soft stance.  He did profess faith that Botha would abolish the system in time, "if only everyone is patient."  Furthermore, on calling Tutu a phony, his full quote was "I think he's a phony, period, as far as representing the black people of South Africa."
While not a supporter of his personal philosophies, he should not be misrepresented in this manner.  Wikipedia needs to be held to a higher standard.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959695,00.html
DeeKenn 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've updated the section to reflect this. --Elliskev 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  DeeKenn 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falwell and Apartheid 

message: "Penthouse" needs to be italicized in the text body.  Cmichael 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.Cmichael 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penthouse Magazine 

message: I was going to use it for sourcing some of the "citation needed" tags, but the articles' totally locked now...Here's the citation:
Peter Applebome, Jerry Falwell, Leading Religious Conservative, Dies at 73, The New York Times, May 15, 2007.  
It can be used for citing:
*"His father was a one-time bootlegger."
*"During the Civil Rights Movement, Falwell was a supporter of racial segregation." (not the MLK quote afterwards)
It can also be used to add info on:
*his involvement with Anita Bryant's anti-gay crusade in Florida, as well as similar in California.
*calling President Clinton an "ungodly liar"
*some good quotes attributed to Falwell.  
Anyone want to insert these? --Bobak 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the article is semi-protected I've inserted some of the above. --Bobak 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times' official obit has a lot of info 

message: I did the add as best I could. 
I think a new section should be added just for it, beings it didnt really fit in any established Categories. 
Also I was unable to get the reference to be added to the bottom of the article. 
The link to the flier is : http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/may2007/20070515_jerry-falwell-funeral.pdf please be aware that it uses vile language,and I am in no way supporting This Hate Church, but it bears recording.
Nimrauko 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it just now.  This is an article about Falwell, not Westboro Baptist church.  If it's notable that they plan/did protest at his funeral, it belongs in the Westboro Baptist Church article, since they seem to protest at just about any funeral they can get to. --Elliskev 00:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: These people protest at funerals all the time. The protests have no rational link to the deceased. --Elliskev 00:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It belongs in the Westboro Baptist Church article - not this one.  It contributes nothing to the biography or our understanding of the man.  Rklawton 01:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely agree - unless everyone who has a reaction that "relates to" his death should be included. In which case, we should add that I will be having a quiet coffee in protest. DewiMorgan 18:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you have to wait for the funeral to see if they do protest and if that protest is noteworthy. Westboro Baptist Church are notorious publicity seekers so often stir trouble just announcing they are protesting funerals and then don't show. They used to be solely focused on gay and gay-related funerals and events and have found new attention by claiming the entire US military/Iraq war effort is gay and/or deserving of "God's wrath" for allowing gay people to have any rights. Whatever you think of them they can be newsworthy but just threatening to protest seems a premature reason to include them here. Benjiboi 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added A section about westboro baptist churches planned protest 

message: Under social beliefs it states that Falwell changed his views from pro-segregation to anti-segregation in his later years. The cited article is not related to segregation. ----
Excuse me, but you all have left out Rev Falwell's published book in  his accomplishments section.  This of couse being How to Take it Up the Ass: Falwell's Guide to Succesful Anal HARDcover
That is immature! Please refrain from cluttering the talk page with such garbage.Shreveport Paranormal 01:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Beliefs/Citation #15 

message: The line, Falwell "never wavered in his fight against the gay agenda" is a POV statement against homosexuality, and a use of weasel words that a) a gay agenda exists and that b) it is "wrong." POV edits will be removed, unless someone opposes it. McDanger 08:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that homosexual activists exist means there is a homosexual agenda; by definition, activists work to accomplish their agenda. Furthermore, those protests they hold, those political actions groups they form, those changes to laws and business policies requiring non-discrimination against homosexuals all are part of an agenda. Whether the agenda was right or wrong, Falwell was opposed to it. So, saying that Falwell never wavered in his opposition to the homosexual agenda is technically accurate. However, it misses the point. Falwell opposed homosexuality, not simply an agenda. Pooua 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Pooua, you just betrayed your own homophobic stance; verily, you state the word "homosexual" no less than 5 times in your short paragraph, all of it in a clearly condescending manner.  Especially the way you state, "those protests they hold, those political actions groups they form, those changes to laws and business policies requiring non-discrimination against homosexuals all are part of an agenda" is EXTREMELY condescending.  The fact of the matter is, there IS no "homosexual agenda" (we prefer the term "gay" by the way, please enter the 21st Century) any more than there is a "black agenda" or a "Jewish agenda" or a "Right-wing Christian agenda."  It is amazing to me that Wikipedia has actually featured you with a bio page of your very own.  That means I must work harder to counteract the influence you obviously wield on here.BobCubTAC 08:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The phrase "homosexual agenda" is non-neutral and has severe POV connotations. I agree with the anon's proposed wording. JoshuaZ 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon's wording makes it sound like Falwell was some kind of paranoid, fighting his own perceptions. That sounds like POV to me. Better to state that Falwell never wavered in his opposition to homosexuality. I don't see how one could be any more neutral than that. Pooua 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm ok with that also, although he didn't oppose homosexuality so much as legal recognition of gay marriage, hate crime legislation including gays as a protected class, etc. Still, close enough for our purposes.  JoshuaZ 03:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  The line's been removed anyway, so the point is moot. But I agree with Joshua like I originally said that "gay agenda" is a POV statement, no matter how people try to justify it. Even the wiki on gay agenda  agrees with this. I had changed it to "opposed gay rights" before the whole statement was removed. McDanger 07:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV "gay agenda" 

message: I wonder how NPOV the Tribute section is. Of course no one is going to say anything bad or even balanced about the man. A few remarks, ok, but this is a list of non-critical respect to his family. --Looskuh 09:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. How do you balance this? These tributes are only relevant within the limited confines of cultural decency. They don't add to the article.  Most importantly, they are by nature, not neutral. --Elliskev 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very non-encyclopedic.  Rklawton 12:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before it was removed I was thinking maybe changing it to a 'Reactions to death' section, adding this from Hitchens; "The discovery of the carcass of Jerry Falwell on the floor of an obscure office in Virginia has almost zero significance, except perhaps for [credulous idiots]...The evil that he did will live after him. This is not just because of the wickedness that he actually preached, but because of the hole that he made in the "wall of separation" that ought to divide religion from politics." () Hopefully other critical comments could be added. I think if the section is reinstated it would obviously be NPOV to include only 'Tributes' and positive views, but I think it is probably better off being entirely removed; it adds little and it unencyclopaedic in my view. Mr-Thomas 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I'd have a problem with a quote from Christopher Hitchens for the same reason I had a problem with the Westboro gang. The quote says more about Hitchens than it does about Falwell. It would be better added to Hitchens's article as an example of his civility. --Elliskev 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno about that really. In my opinion he did do evil, and was wicked, but I don't think that pointing out that Hitchens said so without having room to fit in any of the supporting evidence really adds anything. Ditto with the tributes. Better off without that whole section really and stick to the in depth stuff (as has been suggested in the section below).Mr-Thomas 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That the article would be better off without the tributes and/or indictments. --Elliskev 22:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tributes? 

message: I'm documenting my research here as it took several hours. Flame on Benjiboi 08:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slate has recorded his more controversial remarks here . Remember 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial remarks 

message: This section is very POV and paints him in a far too positive light. Christopher Hitchen's comments need to be added to bring some balance or the entire section needs to be struck. Really the whole section reads more like a temporary memorial for those who view him favorably than something that belongs in an encyclopedia article. 70.60.0.160 10:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section.  See the Tributes discussion above. --Elliskev 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  If a eulogy touches upon some significant aspect of Falwell's life, then that aspect can be expanded upon in section relevant to those facts.  Rklawton 22:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitchens' comments deserve a place somewhere in the article.  He pegged the "Doctor" precisely. TortureIsWrong 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Precisely" according to whom? Jinxmchue 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the removal. And I agree with Jinxmchue now that the other remarks are removed Hitchen's remarks are not relevant, 70.60.0.160 05:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure the best way to do it but to me it is very telling how many 2008 presidential hopefuls were cited and why they made statements - I think to reach out to Falwell's conservative base. Would seem worthy of some mention of his lasting political influence at least. Benjiboi 02:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the way Hitchens's comments were paraded around, I really don't think we can keep him out of the article. They had him in person on Anderson Cooper and Hannity & Colmes, Dennis Miller was talking with Bill O'Reilly about Hitchens's comments, Kathleen Parker responded to him in print, and these are just some of the big names. The media coverage made Hitchens part of the end of Dr. Falwell's story. It's certainly not necessary to quote Hitchens in full; indeed the notable content is more so the media focus on Hitchens. Whichever of Hitchens's remarks were most widely reported, those are what we should limit ourselves to. ··coelacan 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you said, the focus was on Hitchens. Any mention should be in the article about Hitchens, since has more to do with him than with Jerry Falwell. --Elliskev 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content would be relevant in both articles. But in the coverage of Jerry Falwell's death, the media coverage of Hitchens's "eulogy" is highly relevant. Where are we covering Jerry Falwell's death? Primarily in this article. ··coelacan 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that his "eulogy" of Jerry Falwell is at all relevant in an article about Jerry Falwell. It's not like they had any long-term or notable interaction (unlike Larry Flynt) or relationship. --Elliskev 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit more relevant than "Those who shared Falwell's ideology viewed him as a pioneer working to bring America back to its Christian roots.[69] Those targeted by Falwell's extremism generally viewed his opinion as ignorant at best and vindictive at worst.[70]" I'm just looking for actual quotes and verifiable content. ··coelacan 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of balancing a public perception section, I can see the possible relevance. However, how do you make the connection between Hitchens's opinion of Falwell and the views of an alleged group of "those targeted by Falwell's extremism" (totally loaded sentence, BTW)? Hitchens is one guy. If it can be shown that he is representative of any group of notability, fine.  Otherwise, it's just his opinion. There are millions of opinions. --Elliskev 15:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how representative his remarks are. We actually couldn't verify that one way or another. What we can verify is that the remarks are being portrayed as representative of liberals (although I was under the perhaps erroneous impression that Hitchens was a neo-conservative). On a related note, I guess, the "Public Perception of Ministry and Works" section now does not cover anything of the sort. I suspect the content there can be moved to the "Social and political views" section, but it really should be Dr. Falwell's quotes rather than the glossy paraphrasing we currently have. ··coelacan 15:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: RESET INDENT I removed some weasely content from that section, including what you referred to above. --Elliskev 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good call. I'm referring to the current state of the section, though, it doesn't deal with public perceptions at all. ··coelacan 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Elliskev 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eulogistic comments

message: I'm not sure how best to place it but this article needs to address how Falwell influenced the Reagan administration, like Reagan domestic policy advisor Gary Bauer, as well as right-wing members of Congress including California's William Dannenmeyer and North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms to do little about the emerging health crisis AIDS epidemic. Any ideas? I 'm thinking under the "Social and political views" section as this would be both social and political. Benjiboi 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an "Impact on public policy" or the like would be more suitable.  "Views" are trivial compared to "impact."  Since this type of information is likely to arouse significant discussion, just make sure you've got some good sources as opposed to media pundit speculation.  Rklawton 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, impact would seem more appropriate, we'll see where the research leads, The Reagan administration was "interesting" but there was a lot of documentation. The only media pundits I've found so far have been  Christian evangelicals so the bias there has simply led to other sources. Benjiboi 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falwell and AIDS 

message: I've tried to fix it three times now, but it still results in an error. Can someone else check it, please? Part of me thinks it's the url that's doing it. Jinxmchue 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'title' in the cite web template appears to be case-sensitive.  I think I fixed it. --Elliskev 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref #45 is erroring 

message: I've been wrong in so many ways before but ... I thought article talk pages weren't edited for content? Benjiboi 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the message up at the top.  General talk comments on this page will be removed.  This is not a forum for offering your opinion of Jerry Falwell.  Wikipedia is not a message board.  Anything that is merely a comment about the subject himself is inappropriate.  If the topic is football, ok, who cares, but when the topic is a high-visibility topic and this talk page is being seen by the media, by people from Dr. Falwell's ministry, and by plenty of guests who are not editors, it is important that we put our best foot forward.  That's true for any high visibility article.  My interest here is purely administrative.  I haven't edited this article beyond reverting simple vandalism and contacting Liberty to ask for a photo for the article. --BigDT 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, I have to agree with BigDT: our WP:Talk pages attached to specific articles are for the purpose talking about the content of the articles, and not the subject of the articles, except in that context. There are plenty of other places on the Internet which are more appropriate to express your views about highly controversial people such as this man. Vaoverland 02:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur. I've done some cleanup myself. It varies from article to article... High profile articles are (rightfully) more apt to have extraneous crap removed from the talk pages.  --Elliskev 01:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Talk Pages? 

message: Does Max Blumenthal qualify as a reliable source for historical accuracy in this article? Isn't this kind of like using a Rush Limbaugh op-ed as a source in an article on Hillary Clinton?  --Elliskev 19:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax. I didn't say that I doubt his article. I'm saying that Wikipedia should use sources that are as reliable as possible. --Elliskev 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Per WP:NPOV - "Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it." If the statement is made that "Max Blumenthal says X" and he did, in fact, say X, that an NPOV formulation, as long as it does not provide undue weight to Mr. Blumenthal. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right, Hip.  And Falwell DID give the speech Blumenthal mentioned - it was even published by his own church.  TortureIsWrong 20:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But, there is no "Max Blumenthal says X." Blumenthal is being used as a secondary source. If there's another source (especially if there's a primary source) to support the speech in question (the segregation speech), it would be better to use that over Blumenthal. --Elliskev 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be bold. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in this case. My preference is to pare down the criticism considerably. I think the article POV is becoming a little lopsided. However, I realize my bias and prefer to let others modify certain aspects. --Elliskev 20:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the article is stunningly lopsided - in that it gives a falsely positive overall picture of the man's life - but I'm content to let things fall as they may.  If someone has a better cite for Falwell's racist speech on segregation, feel free to change my footnote accordingly. But the speech is a part of Falwell's "legacy," like it or not. TortureIsWrong 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh huh.  Most of the article is critical of him.  From reading it, you would think that he spent most of his time to come up with controversial things to say. --BigDT 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did.  Should the article discuss his many long and undoubtedly horrific trips to the bathroom instead? TortureIsWrong 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you expect to be taken seriously? --Elliskev 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is levity not allowed on your planet? TortureIsWrong 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No personal attacks. Please comment on the content, not the editor. B.Wind 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. MoeLarryJesus 09:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Max Blumenthal]] as a source 

message: It isn't necessary to provide a subheading, external link, and description of every single separate entity of the Moral Majority's / Falwell's / Liberty University's / organizational structure at the top of the article.  The content seemed haphazard - i.e., the Godparent Organization gets a separate heading but the Moral Majority does not?  It muddies the focus of the and does not illuminate the topic.  The article should focus on the main organizations that the public has heard of, which would be TRBJ, the Moral Majority (which is the most well-known) and Liberty University.  I started a Moral Majority stub that certainly needs fleshing out.  I doubt that the newspaper should be listed as a separate paragraph, as it's essentially associated with Liberty University, and belongs on that Wikipedia entry.  The PTL section is too long, the details of the PTL takeover are described on the PTL page and don't need to be explicitly repeated here.Typing monkey 02:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Associated Organizations]] 

message: Looking at the history, it seems that nearly half of the edits on this article are vandalism by unregistered editors. I realize he was a controversial figure, but seriously, enough is enough. Would it be inappropriate to semi-protect the article? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protect 

message: Could an editor familiar with the content of the article and these talk section please archive old discussions? Thank you! Benjiboi 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. I've moved all conversations that seemed obsolete to the archive pages, If I've erred feel free to start a new relevant conversation (about the article only please) or quote some lingering thread that needs to be revisited. p.s. For those unaware we try to archive talk pages to keep the length down for those with slower connection speeds. It not only aids them but also any editor trying to understand the current issues to be addressed. Benjiboi 19:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk section need Archiving 

message: Someone has taken great pains to distance the teletubbies comments away from Falwell. Firstly the idea that Falwell wasn't the first to have stated this is not that relevant but if it must be included then trim the extraneous content about who what when where why etc as we don't include that about every outlandish comment someone makes or supports. Secondly, even if Falwell didn't write the article he was widely credited with it as well as making statements of the same so at least stating that he was credited even though...would be more appropriate and make sense in the content of this bio. Benjiboi 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teletubbies content 

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. That is such an outrageous quote from a Christian leader that it must have a source. I've removed the entire quote until we do. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote

message: I saw on TV a while back when he was on a show called Talkback Live! on CNN, and they were discussing the Harry Potter books, and JF was saying they would teach children devil worship.  I can't find a transcript link however, even on CNN's website.  I don't think that show segment is still running on CNN anymore.
Otani 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falwell and Harry Potter 

message: I have removed the last paragraph of the The PTL Club and Heritage USA section.
This paragraph just had all kinds of problems.  For one, it's an unsourced allegation and we do not need that in high profile articles.  For another, if Bakker's documentary is making this claim (and I have no idea one way or another), then it needs to be phrased more like "Bakker says in ...".  I'm not familiar with this documentary, but I am going out on a limb and assuming from the name that it is a Michael Moore-like "documentary" in that it is not necessarilly from a NPOV. --BigDT 01:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The PTL Club and Heritage USA 

message: Interesting that paragraphs are allowed to remain in the article with no substantiation.  See the second paragraph under item #6 Social and Political Views. No attributable link is attached but the comment is allowed to stand.  So much for fairness.
I removed this from the section:   He often spoke out in favor of the racist position in those days.  For example, in 1958, he said:
:: Well, it seems that he was right. --41.242.229.25 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brown v. Board of Education quote

message: I don't see it in the article, but, didn't his newspaper as much as say, since Lilith was Adam's first wife (& a demon?), the Lilith Fair was a tool of Satan?  Damion 17:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was generally considered by much of Protestant Christianity as apocryphal, meaning that they feel there is little truth behind this (and none concerning this tale). We got his newspaper for a time during the late 1990s, but I don't know if that was before or after 1999 (the time we received it)?  WAVY 10 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never saw it, myself, but it would have been '99-'00.  Trekphiler 04:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Call me [[Lilith]]