Talk:Jerry Falwell/Archive 1

Protection?
Is this page semi-protected or totally protected?

Unfair protection of this page
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)


 * They removed the audio I had of the event. Coolgamer 19:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're definitely pro-Falwell. Especially me. -- Y not? 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolling/Vandalism
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)Stephen Kosciesza


 * 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)


 * 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)Stephen Kosciesza


 * "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)

Controversial Edits Section
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)

Controversial Quotes Section
The remarks quoted are certainly worth recording, but there's more about Jerry Falwell that's worth recording as well. This reminds me of the initial Bob Jones University entry. Hope this one can be expanded as well. --Wesley


 * I reverted this page to put back the deleted "controversial quotes" section. I tend to agree (at least in a general way) with the (long previous) comment by Wesley below.  That section may not be completely fair, but I think it would better improve it by putting it in context or adding other material to balance it out instead of just deleting it.  --Patrickdavidson 07:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Would anyone object to moving the quotes to wikiquote and simply linking to it?

AdamJacobMuller T@lk Thu Dec 30 07:37:47 GMT 2004


 * How many biographies in wiki actually merit a "controversial quotes" section? Celebrities will all say something controversial from time to time, but I certainly see very little precedent for this type of a section.

I just broke up the "Controversial Remarks" section into subsections. While I definitely think this section belongs in the article, I think it should be restricted to actual controversies that are relevant to Falwell. The Teletubbies controversy was significant, but Falwell didn't have write the article himself, so it's not relevant to his page. For the rest, we should be able to demonstrate via major independent sources that a controversy actually arose from each of Falwell's comments. - Maximusveritas 09:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the Teletubbies quotes with references. I find no proof that he didn't write it or that he distanced himself from those statements or denied any of it. It was in his publication and attributed to him and certainly made headline news and is being brought up as part of many obitituaries so seems well worthy of inclusion. Benjiboi 07:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This blog article and various other sources (e.g. indicate that Falwell didn't write the article, and that he subsequently distanced himself from it. Several of these - and indeed the NLJ article itself - link to a response from Falwell that no longer appears to be available to support this. None of them are on their own what I'd consider to be reliable sources on the matter, which is why I haven't added these denials to the article, but as a compromise I think it might be safer to attribute the claims to the NLJ rather than directly to Falwell.


 * Also, this section quotes Falwell as saying "role modelling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children". I think the casual reader, seeing it in this paragraph, would be likely to assume that it comes from the NLJ article (it doesn't) or at least from a statement of Falwell's made in connection to that article (and I haven't seen any confirmation that it was). If it was not made in the context of the Teletubbies article, it risks misleading readers and should be shifted or deleted. --Calair 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked at all three of the sources you reference, two conservative blogs and the Minnesota Family Council, none of which are credible sources for the purposes of changing the content in question. Here are the quotes from the BBC article. "The Reverend Jerry Falwell, a former spokesman for America's Moral Majority, has denounced the BBC TV children's show. He says it does not provide a good role model for children because Tinky Winky is gay... In an article called Parents Alert: Tinky Winky Comes Out of the Closet, he says: "He is purple - the gay-pride colour; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol." He said the "subtle depictions" of gay sexuality are intentional and later issued a statement that read: "As a Christian I feel that role modelling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children." Although others may have claimed Tinky Winky as a gay icon, Jerry Falwell took it to a different level and with different intent. In Britain where the characters (remember they aren't real) first started Salon.com says they were hailed by some gay groups as the first children's gay icon. Which groups and how it doesn't go into but Falwell was warning parents about Tinky Winky being used by the creators of the series to be a gay role model. Benjiboi 01:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the rest of this, what was the point of reverting the parts of my edit where I referenced the actual NLJ article in which the criticism appeared and narrowed down its date? Surely a citation for the actual publication where they appeared is appropriate here. --Calair 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And for what it's worth, GLAAD - hardly a right-wing haven - also acknowledges that Falwell denied being the author of the Teletubbies comments. I'm still trying to find a copy of Falwell's actual press release, but what appears on GLAAD's site looks to be consistent with the ones above: that the remarks appeared in the journal he published, but that they weren't his personal opinions. In a similar vein, comments from Soulforce (a gay-friendly religious organisation founded by a former associate of Falwell's) and a distinctly anti-Falwell commentary report the same press release in the same way.


 * If it was a matter of sources that simply contradicted one another, I wouldn't give any of the ones I've listed a great deal of consideration; they clearly don't meet the usual standard of WP:RS. But when the suggestion is that the 'reliable sources' (which, as we know, can get it wrong) might have misinterpreted something - and it's easy to see how "article in a Falwell-published journal" could be confused with "article by Falwell" - that's a little different. --Calair 08:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree but have no energy to do battle on this. Benjiboi 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the controversial remarks page, removing the last line discussing Falwell's equating political ideology and religion. The first quote is taken out of context from a second-hand source, and portrays something quite different from what is intended. (The exact quote from Falwell is that he believed God was a Republican. With a small "r". Meaning that he did not believe that God had a party affiliaton, but that the values of the god that he believed in were better reflected by republican ideology. The second quote about Jesus being the "First American" is unattributed.

I dont like the guy any more than anyone else, but we can't take quotes out of context from second-hand resources and shape them to mean whatever we want. I find it funny that when reverts from the extreme right are made, they get raked over with a fine-tooth comb for neutrality and accuracy, but the criticisms from the left aren't checked for veracity. It just goes to show that, more and more so, it is impossible to have a NPOV article on Wikipedia. --Goosedoggy 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the template appearing at the top of this section, because the section, in its current state, consists almost entirely of remarks made or alleged to have been made by Mr. Falwell and contains no POV commentary that I can detect. There should be a discussion about whether the single remark about MLK Jr. should be deleted because of the lack of a source. However, there are more specific ways of dealing with unattributed quotes than the template currently in place. As is, the section does what the section's title says it does, and the presentation of controversial remarks is done with very few additional comments. In light of this, I am removing the template, though those who disagree with its removal should discuss this here. --DavidGC 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the time I wrote the above explanation, the template was removed by Grandmasterka. Obviously, I support that user's decision to remove the template. --DavidGC 22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Racial Segregation Supporter
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)

Removed the "former segregationist" intro. from article, no citation, even if true is not mentioned in articles on Al Gore Sr. or Robert Byrd, who were in fact once segregationis, but this is of secondary importance to who they are today. jme

Lopsided
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.

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chipdouglas (talk &bull; 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)

The article states he was a supporter of racial segregation and cites a NYT article that does not state or imply he ever supported racial segregation. This is incorrect and a prime example of why Wikipedia is so often dismissed as useless. Distwalker 00:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think its irrelevant that his honorary doctorates came from unaccredited institutions. They convey no academic accomplishment whether they're from BillyBob's Bible Skool or Harvard. Not a fan of Falwell, but trying to improve Wikipedia. Gregohio 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This Article Lacks Neutrality
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.

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kbolino (talk &bull; 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)

Is it Neutral Now?
I added sources, cleaned up some of the worst abuses, and added some more information about his life, his work, and his less controversial positions. Can we take the big ugly sign down from the article? Dave 20:28, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has complained in the past few days, I'm going to take the sign down and see what happens. If anyone thinks it is still biased, I encourage them to add their own content to supplement what's up rather than slapping an objection at the top of the page. Dave 14:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sept 11 Quotes
I happen to have the actual audio recording of the infamous speech given by Falwell regarding the Sep. 11th attacks. Would it be okay to upload it to my server and link to the mp3 in the article? Coolgamer June 30, 2005 17:27 (UTC)


 * I think so, but Wikipedia seems to prefer the .ogg format. And you may have to reduce the length of the speech for copyright reasons (e.g. a thirty-second clip). Dave (talk) July 1, 2005 14:35 (UTC)

I had heard that Falwell apologized for his 9/11 remarks after George W Bush requested/demanded it. I don't have a source. Has anyone else heard this? Gregohio 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but a week before dying, he pretty much said "I still stand by it." http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/cnn-just-last-week-falwell-reiterated.html

Secret Fire 4:10, May 16 2007.

Category Up for a Vote
category:LGBT rights opposition, of which this article is a member, is up for a vote because user:Noitall believes that the phrase "LGBT rights" is POV; the votes are roughly evenly split right now between keep/rename and delete. I thought people on both sides of the issue would want to weigh in here. (Full disclosure: I'm hoping that the category survives, but I'm open to changing the name). Dave (talk) 04:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not Libel
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)

Canadian Law?
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)

No mention of Falwell's avocating the assasination of democractically elected leaders?
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)

Probably because it was Pat Robertson, not Falwell who said that. Againstxmatt 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Racial Segregationist
I just want a source for where Jerry Falwell was a former racial segregationist. That's all...
 * I've placed the word alleged in parantheses until someone can offer a reputable source for that claim.--36Thoughtless

  would be a start I presume. The second two are arguably biased, the first is not. A google search for "Falwell" + "Segregationist" turns up many more. JoshuaZ 05:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

None of what I've read of any of those prove his support for racial segregation or integration. The thing is, though not being a fundamental Baptist, I've been around them enough to know that they usually say what they mean. In other words, any seemingly extreme stance by them is often widely supported, such as their anti-homosexuality stance; this case, however, is different. Jerry Falwell seems more politically motivated, and I'm not sure that he may have just tried to cover his track record of segregationist policies or that the story was rumored and widely circulated by his enemies. Again, I don't know, but I'd like to be sure.--36Thoughtless


 * Well, Salon is a reliable magazine, so I would trust their statement on the matter. I also have never heard Falwell attempt to claim that he wasn't a segregationist as a young man. Presumably given how common the claim is, if it were false, he would say so. JoshuaZ 05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if anyone actually bothered to read the Salon article they would have found that it was about Falwell's work with, not against, MLK Jr.'s niece. The other two articles aren't even remotely related to segregation by any stretch of the imagination, and the third link isn't even about Falwell, it's about William Jennings Bryant! Come on! Read up on the demographics of his school and you'll find it's about 13% black (which is about the break down of the whole country). Fomer segregationalist, yes. But the text at the beginning of the article reads as if he is currently a racist. NPOV anybody? Who cares what you think of this guy --you're lying about him, now. Take it down.


 * Talk about not reading an article. The article you say is about someone else mentions Falwell's start in the political environment as does this article although I would not call it unbiased.

What's the deal? Where'd the former go?--36Thoughtless

Falwell's Nefarious Dealings
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, which is the policy in question. Kasreyn 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Labor Unions Quote
''"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)

Past Antisemitism
"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)


 * 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)

Editing speed
We have way too much editing going on the page right now. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No kidding. I may consider semi-protection if it gets worse. Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * DOD has already been added into the header. Dirtysocks 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And reverted until the media confirms it. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right On. This is still a BLP.  --BenBurch 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CNN Headline news said he has died (from AP) 69.242.51.51 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CBS Radio confirms. --BenBurch 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Liberty University also confirms! Told you he was dead!!130.156.29.61 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Death Confirmed
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).
 * 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)


 * 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)

He died from cardiac failure the official diagnosis was announced at the one o clock news conference on CNN. Shreveport Paranormal 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

PTL is reporting that a "fecaloma the size of a grapefruit" was manually removed from his lower-intestine. Why do you keep reverting this important fact?


 * 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).

This supposed "severe bowel obstruction" is extremely suspect and probably just a prank. When Gerald Ford died someone on wikipedia said that he died of a severe bowel obstruction as well in spite of it not being backed up by any source that wasnt using wikipedia as a reference. It would take some detective work but I am willing to be the same person who made that edit on the Gerald Ford page when he died also did it here. I would also look into the recent deaths of other famous people to see if anyone ever mentioned a severe bowel obstruction.Chicago103 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

User:Astanhope has added some highly inappropriate content to this and a related article. He made the same sorts of edits to the Gerald Ford article following his death, too. He has now been warned. Please treat Astanhope's edits with due care. Rklawton 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please please please don't add unsourced or anonymously-sourced information about his cause of death. Kolindigo 18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Why's this all being discussed here Death Confirmed? Start a new Discussion section. GoodDay 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

i've been lurking a while, but this is my first contribution, so please forgive errors in form! seems to me that if Falwell was found "without pulse," and that "CPR was unsuccessful," that he was technically DOA, and his family was not with him at his death.4.249.237.111 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You idiots have way too much time on your hands.131.191.36.87 07:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism since Falwell's death
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)
 * 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)

Trivia
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)

I basically agree with the sentiment, but a timely article about such a controversial figure is bound to create a non-encyclopedic article. History will judge fact and fiction, but you can't expect this article to avoid hit and runs during the time. Much like my comment here. Hopefully folks will come back later and give him the "respect" he deserves. If there is a heaven and hell, I'd like to think I know where he went.

God is a Republican?
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)

He said it but I cant remember when and where he said it. Google it. Shreveport Paranormal 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just notice the related paragraphs up above, under the subtitle, "Controversial Quotes Section." Again, there's only one place on the web that backs up that he said "God is a Republican. With a small r", but it's not a direct quote (someone said that he said) and/or it can't be verified. Leon7 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Only source I could find, and not exactly reliable. Until a reliable source for this is found, it should be removed. If it isn't already. LonelyPker 04:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Aaand it is. XD

Please keep personal feelings out of the article. (His Recent Death Foremost)
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Excessive links
I'm going to start cutting down on the links in EL, if there are no objections. Kolindigo 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please bring some order tho the chaos :D I have no objection.Shreveport Paranormal 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Bibliography section, what's up with the hello in "Accreditation database for South Korea hello" ? I can't change it since I'm not an established user, so maybe someone else can check it out? Pterodactyl katya 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Elliskev 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Falwell and Apartheid
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)


 * Thanks. I've updated the section to reflect this. --Elliskev 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. DeeKenn 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Penthouse Magazine
"Penthouse" needs to be italicized in the text body. Cmichael 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Thank you.Cmichael 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

New York Times' official obit has a lot of info
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: It can also be used to add info on: Anyone want to insert these? --Bobak 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "His father was a one-time bootlegger."
 * "During the Civil Rights Movement, Falwell was a supporter of racial segregation." (not the MLK quote afterwards)
 * 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.
 * Now that the article is semi-protected I've inserted some of the above. --Bobak 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is "Kolindigo" the dictator of this page?
Kolindigo keeps taking off my addition of "Rev. Falwell’s family, including his wife Macel and sons Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Jonathan Falwell, were with him at the hospital at the time of his death." from a Liberty U. press statement (http://www.liberty.edu/administration/index.cfm?PID=14092). How is this irrelevant?Kylel2005 07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it is irrelevant because the section is on his death and its cause. Who was with him belongs more in a biography than in an encyclopedia article. Kolindigo 07:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of the section is "Failing health and death" not "his death and its cause." If you find it relevant to have President Bush wishing him well, him missing an appointment, and doctor's confirming his death then I think a case can be made that his family being at his side when at the time of his death is relevant. Does anyone else agree? Kylel2005 07:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of "Failing Health and Death" does not fit and does not look encyclopedic, for several reasons, but most importantly because temporary illness 2 years ago has no apparent bearing on his death yesterday. If anything, it should show a clear progression of ill health that lead up his death, instead of what appears to be mostly isolated illnesses (I haven't heard an official cause of death, so perhaps it is too soon to write that paragraph, anyway).


 * I see nothing wrong with mentioning that Falwell's family was with him when he died. I just flipped through my Encyclopaedia Britannica, and found that though it usually abruptly ends entries on lives with a terse statement that so-and-so died on such-and-such a date, it does sometimes provide extra details, such as the fact that the man's wife died some years later, or the man died at his sister's home. Pooua 08:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I added A section about westboro baptist churches planned protest
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)

Why was the part I put in removed? Just curious. Nimrauko 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I undid the removal of the Westboro Baptist Church portion. Its removal was due to Westboro Baptist Churches Not Needing Whoring/ This would make the removal a POV removal. I am putting an unbiased piece of fact into this article. It has a reference and bears recording.


 * 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)

Beings it pertains to Falwell I added it. I want to hear what others say before its just removed. I am not saying I dont agree, but I feel it should be noted on the page that it was a planned event. Nimrauko 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These people protest at funerals all the time. The protests have no rational link to the deceased. --Elliskev 00:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Social Beliefs/Citation #15
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)

POV "gay agenda"
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)

Perhaps a better line would be "Falwell never wavered in his fight against what he perceived to be the 'gay agenda'" 70.60.0.160 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Tributes?
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)


 * 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)


 * Very non-encyclopedic. Rklawton 12:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Agreed. That the article would be better off without the tributes and/or indictments. --Elliskev 22:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Public Perception
Jerry Falwell directly and indirectly affected a pretty sizeable number of people through his work. Does anyone feel the page would be benefitted to have a section titled, "Public Perception of Dr. Falwell" or "Longterm affects of his ministry." Some have noted (you know who you are) my obvious bias against the good doctor, so I'll be largely hands-off. Either reply here or on my talk page if you think this is a workable idea. Thanks,--Legomancer 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as the sections are well-sourced, balanced, and encyclopedic... Why not? I'm sure that there is a lot of information out there regarding the positive public perception of Falwell and the positive long-term effects of his ministry. Have at it. --Elliskev 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Realize a truly balanced section will contain about 50% negative information, though. I suspect you have a basically positive opinion of him, while I have a basically negative opinion. I hope there's some "middle-of-the-road" type people out there who could get us started. Elliskev and I (among others) will almost certainly offer guidance if the conversation veers off towards pep-rally or lynching...--Legomancer 23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of adding a section called "Public Perception of Falwell's Ministries." Realize it is a work in progress. I plan to work on it for about 30 minutes, then quit for a few hours, then come back to it. I will make every effort to be fair, but I'm counting on the majority of you to double-check me. I'd like to stop a revert war before it starts, so the first addition will be easily verifiable template style bullet-points. I encourage those of you with good information to add where appropriate. If the response is overwhelmingly negative from the get-go, I'll revert it back to how it is now. Feel free to message me here or on my talk page, thanks--Legomancer 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've written 3 short paragraphs basically beginning where I'd like to start. Some of it is repetitious with what is already there. Like I said before, I do not want to make a lot of drastic changes right away only to have it reverted. I welcome constructive input every step of the way. The format I'm envisioning is a brief description of his beliefs, then detail on how he acted on that belief, and then close the paragraph(s) with how those actions/beliefs offended people or any unintended consequences. We should also list some minor endeavors he pursued that turned out generally favorably for all parties involved. To maintain NPOV I think 3 or 4 projects/agendas of Dr. Falwell from start to finish, plus any public outcry/praise they created. Thank you in advance for all of your help.--Legomancer 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a lovely essay, but unless you source it, it should be deleted. Rklawton 02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing in those 3 paragraphs was unique, revolutionary, or contrary to the rest of the discussion. Rather than adding sources or rhetorical questions, why did you revert the entire edit? Did you not notice the several back and forth emails regarding adding/maintaining the section? My goal was to wait and hear people's (plural) opinion of the meat of the section. Please hold your comments/reverts until I (and other contributors) have fleshed out the new section. Thanks, Legomancer


 * I'm re-re-adding the comments (which you might have noticed were positive) along with some negative opinions. For the time being I'm going to put my cites in parenthetical notation until I have time to re-number *all* of the references so it fits whoever's standard is currently reverting me.

Why does somebody keep removing the comments about Falwell and his groups being considered "Hate Groups?" This isn't a personal opinion, it's based on the definition of hate group. Falwell advocated discrimination and, as such, his company's should be considered a Hate Group. I would like somebody to offer contrary information rather than just remove whatever they feel is offensive/against their beliefs. I'm making an effort to be neutral and professional. If I fail at the attempt, so state, and offer something better. I'm all for constructive criticism, but sniping under cover of anonymity is pointless. I'm not asking you to like Dr. Falwell, I'm not even asking you to like me, I'm just requesting you add useful information - if that's too much, then refrain from removing researched and accurate information.--Legomancer 04:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See "Hate Group" subheader below. Rklawton 04:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section. It needs to sourced for verifiablity. --Elliskev 22:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with it, I think the quote "Dr. Falwell advocated his beliefs *at the expense of opposing beliefs or personal freedom*. His strong sense of “Traditional Family” led him to denounce anything outside of his definition. He was very outspoken, to the point of using degrading and insulting language, towards ideas he did not endorse." in this section is unreferenced and (the part marked especially) largely opinionated... this stood out to me even on first reading. Eko 06:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial remarks
I'm documenting my research here as it took several hours. Flame on Benjiboi 08:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Falwell had a long history of controversial remarks stemming from his fundamentalist beliefs and often justified by a literal Biblical interpretation.

In 1977 he supported Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign based on "Christian beliefs regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality and the perceived threat of homosexual recruitment of children and child molestation" in Dade County, Florida to repeal an ordinance that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In urging the repeal of the ordinance Falwell told one crowd "gay folks would just as soon kill you as look at you."

He's been called the founder of the anti-gay industry who regularly demonized and dehumanized gays and fought against gay rights. In the early 1980s when the AIDS pandemic was still in its early years and could have been addressed as a health crisis he swayed public opinion against people with AIDS (PWAs) and implicated gays as deserving disease (and death) saying “AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.” Instead gays and AIDS deaths were lampooned and research and treatment went underfunded for years to follow. On Falwell's "Old Time Gospel Hour" broadcast (March 11, 1984), he again dehumanized gays by using scripture to call them corrupt "brute beasts" when the mostly gay Metropolitan Community Church was almost accepted into the World Council of Churches. He said, "this vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven."

Gays were not his only target, in 1999, Falwell declared the Antichrist would probably arrive within a decade and "Of course he'll be Jewish." After anti-Semitism charges Falwell apologized and explained that he was simply expressing the theological tenet that the Antichrist and Christ share many attributes.

That same year he outed Tinky Winky, the purple character with the triangular aerial on his head portrayed by an actor in an oversized, brightly coloured costume as gay. The Teletubbies all have television screens on their tummies and, according to the story line, live in a "chromedome" hidden in the hills. The immensely popular UK show is aimed at pre-school children but Falwell stated "he is purple - the gay pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol." Apart from those characteristics Tinky Winky also carries a magic bag which Falwell said was a purse and added "role modelling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children." In response, Steve Rice, spokesperson for Itsy Bitsy Entertainment, which licenses the Teletubbies in the US, said "I really find it absurd and kind of offensive."


 * Unsurprisingly, this section has nearly doubled since his death. Jinxmchue 23:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Slate has recorded his more controversial remarks here . Remember 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate Group
User:Legomancer would like to add the following text to the article: ''It is also worth noting, using most common (for example, Southern Poverty Law Center or Anti Defamation league) usage: The Moral Majority & Liberty Universities teaching would constitute their inclusion as a Hate Group. Falwell's people - et al - endorse various forms of religious bigotry, discrimination, and attempt to interpose their beliefs into mainstream education.''

However, it is my contention that without a source, this constitutes original research. To wit, to the best of my knowledge, none of these named groups have labled the Moral Majority as a "hate group" - though this essay would leave the reader to believe they did. Thoughts? Rklawton 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any group out there - any group at all - that has declared the Moral Majority to be a hate group? Or is this only the opinion of a novice editor?  Rklawton 04:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed these edits yet again as they constitute original research and violate our NPOV policies. Such removal does not qualify as a "reversion" per the 3-reversion rule as original research/NPOV violations are classified as "vandalism."  Anyone uncertain about the editor's POV issues are welcome to visit his/her user page here.  Rklawton 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've cited sources, you reverted. I explained my position, you reverted. I documented my changes, you reverted. I've responded to your comments in all forums you've presented them, and you revert. I've got to ask. Dude, what is your problem?

Your claims of "Original Reseach" go out the window when I present multiple sources (which you conveniently remove). What do you stand to gain by preventing open discussion of this person?--Legomancer 05:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You claimed that applying other people's definitions to the Moral Majority yourself didn't constitute original research. It does.  After two reversions, you went out to find a source for your essay, but the source citation comes from a fringe, online "free press" - far from a reliable or neutral source.  And that's pretty much the point here.  You're trying to add POV material to this article - first of your own creation, and then from the fringe far left.  Lastly, your essay named two organizations well known for their human rights work – and neither of which to my knowledge ever labeled the Moral Majority a "hate group."  But by naming these groups, you give readers the impression that they have labeled the Moral Majority a "hate group" themselves.  Since these organizations have defined "hate groups" – you'd think they wouldn't have missed an organization that claimed up to 12 million members.   That's a big problem.  Wikipedia isn't a soap box.  If you want to rail against this person or this group, feel free to continue to do so on your talk page.  But let's keep our articles encyclopedic.  Rklawton 05:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The POV personal essay you keep adding cites a source that specifically states that the organizations you list do NOT list the moral majority as a hate group. Your essay is misleading.  Furthermore, the "source" is a POV editorial pushing the author's own agenda and not at all a reliable source for the human rights status of the Moral Majority.  In short, you've managed to cite a hack opinion piece which is exactly the sort of POV pushing we don't want in a Wikipedia article.  Rklawton 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note the source includes Dr. Falwell as a "hate group" solely because of his criticism of Tinky Winky. Rklawton 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the definition of a hate group? Please enlighten us. And so as you know, I never said ADL or SPLC claimed Falwell was a Hate Group, I simply used their definition. --Legomancer 05:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically what we have is an editor with a strong POV against Falwell who has decided for himself that Falwell is a "hate group" and used a fringe opinion piece that says essentially "no one lists Falwell as a hate group - but they should," as the only supporting citation. And that, folks, is why this one paragraph (out of several this user added to the article) has been removed as an NPOV violation. Rklawton 13:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You did not answer the question. Let's try again: What is the definition of a hate group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.97.199 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't have one - and that's the point. We don't allow original research here on Wikipedia.  Rklawton 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Southern Law Poverty Center is considered an authority on hate groups and indeed monitors them online. If they don't consider The Moral Majority & Liberty University et al as hate groups or reference them as a hot-bed of training then I would be very slow in making that judgment even if they seem a worthy candidate. As a suggestion, perhaps doing more research arguing for and against listing them as a hate group or even contacting the SLPC to see if they should be listed would be more appropriate. Benjiboi 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Eulogistic comments
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)
 * I've removed the section. See the Tributes discussion above. --Elliskev 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Hitchens' comments deserve a place somewhere in the article. He pegged the "Doctor" precisely. TortureIsWrong 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Precisely" according to whom? Jinxmchue 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. ··coe l acan 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. ··coe l acan 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. ··coe l acan 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. ··coe l acan 15:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * RESET INDENT I removed some weasely content from that section, including what you referred to above. --Elliskev 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, good call. I'm referring to the current state of the section, though, it doesn't deal with public perceptions at all. ··coe l acan 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Elliskev 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Falwell and AIDS
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Ref #45 is erroring
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)


 * 'title' in the cite web template appears to be case-sensitive. I think I fixed it. --Elliskev 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing Talk Pages?
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)

So did I - but BigDT says otherwise, and he seems to be very interested in Jerry Falwell. TortureIsWrong 16:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

I just noticed this section. Yes, removal of off-topic conversation is encouraged by WP:TALK and BigDT isn't even the one who put the notaforum template up there. If you see any particular specific removal that you disagree with, feel free to bring it up, but in general there is nothing wrong with the removal of off-topic convo. ··coe l acan 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Max Blumenthal as a source
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)

Blumenthal supports his claims very well. Do your own research and if you find a source disproving his article, go with it. But I don't think you will. Falwell's roots as a noxious bigot are well established, even if his later so-called "change of heart" was sincere. TortureIsWrong 20:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Be bold. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * He did. Should the article discuss his many long and undoubtedly horrific trips to the bathroom instead? TortureIsWrong 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you expect to be taken seriously? --Elliskev 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is levity not allowed on your planet? TortureIsWrong 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks. Please comment on the content, not the editor. B.Wind 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. MoeLarryJesus 09:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Associated Organizations
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)

I really pared this down. All of the content is repetitive of content in other pages. I took out PTL as I think it doesn't belong in the section. The three organizations mentioned are the three major organizations that he founded and is most well-known for. He didn't found PTL, and his involvement isn't something the average person would know. The PTL saga should be mentioned on the page, but not here. Maybe it is best incorporated somewhere else.Typing monkey 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protect
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 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Section headings/organizations and NPOV
I am considering placing an NPOV tag on the article. The section headings from "Election fund improprieties" on seem badly organized in a way designed to not adhere to NPOV. How does "Homosexuality", "Teletubbies", "September 11th attacks", or "Labor unions" fit as a subheading related to election funds? I'm not sure how to reorganize, so I leave it to those with more involvement in the article. I am slapping a fact flag on the one sentence directly under that heading, as it is unreferenced. GRBerry 17:26, 30 August 2007

Talk section need Archiving
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)
 * 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)

Teletubbies content
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)

Removal of LBGT section
I'm not sure who put this section here, but as many people already know Jerry Falwell throught his life has fought gay rights and many things associated with them. In order to place an LBGT section on a famous person, the person in question will have to show evidence of alledged non heterosexuality ( example, Gay,Lesbian,Bisexual,Transgendered) or at least evidence of support of LBGT causes.In this case, Jerry Falwell was in fact both a complete heterosexual, and a very famous outspoken homophobe. So in other words, he cannot be included in an LBGT section.

Lostinsidemyworld 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The LGBT Project has within its scope articles relating to LGBT issues. Inclusion does not mean that the subject matter is gay. Fireplace 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. You actually answered the concern - "Jerry Falwell was in fact both a complete heterosexual, and a very famous outspoken homophobe". This is why he is included, he was very interested in the gay community. Benjiboi 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A section on Falwell's opinion of LBGT certainly should be here. It wouldnt imply he was BGT.
 * Wageslave (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
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)

What about the University?
the weight of unpopular opinion about Dr. Falwell is more than enough to keep what has been fairly attributed to him on this article. but what about Liberty University? the article on it, itself, seems to be pretty fair and even historical. more focus should be given to Falwell's influence on the school. according to the man himself, it's the one thing he would like to be remembered by (as impossible as that probably is, now). that would be the key to objectivity here --he's spent a good deal of his life doing it, after all.

Quote
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)

Fatwa for Falwell's death
The following Friday, Mohsen Mojtahed Shabestari, the spokesman of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khameini, issued a fatwa for Falwell's death, saying that Falwell was a "mercenary and must be killed," and, "The death of that man is a religious duty, but his case should not be tied to the Christian community." Can we get a source for this?

Falwell and Harry Potter
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)

The PTL Club and Heritage USA
I have removed the last paragraph of the The PTL Club and Heritage USA section.

According to the 2000 documentary The Eyes of Tammy Faye, Falwell manipulated the Bakkers into giving up control of PTL, and then publicly attacked Jim Bakker for greed and alleged homosexuality. Tammy Faye Bakker and husband Roe Messner both allege that Falwall instructed her to write down details of the salary package provided to the Bakkers, and Falwell then characterized the list as the demands of the Bakkers. Falwell always denied these allegations.

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) I think that it should be put in the controversy section, beings it was one of the many things he continued up until the end of his life. Ms.Mesner was on Larry King Live Tonight, and if you read the transcripts I think the paragraph would make a bit more sense. I hope. *Falwell Aparently took over Tammy Fae and her husbands old group (Im not sure on specifics) and they have always had a bit of animosity amongst them. Nimrauko 02:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be at least one paragraph about this as Falwell was a player in the disposition of PTL and Heritage USA. If I am not mistaken, he slid down the waterslide at the park in a three piece suit.User:JCHeverly 19:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Brown v. Board of Education quote
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: "If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision [Brown v. Board of Education] would never have been made…. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line."


 * Well, it seems that he was right. --41.242.229.25 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote was not referenced. It was not from the salon.com article that is being used as ref. If you can give a source for where this quote is coming from I will be more than glad to put it back. Any objections?Nimrauko 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I find a reference to this line in an article from The Nation from 2007. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/blumenthal. Superrobotghost (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Call me Lilith
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)


 * 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)
 * Never saw it, myself, but it would have been '99-'00. Trekphiler 04:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)