Talk:Michael Woroniecki/Archive 1

Encounter of Woroniecki at Virginia Tech 10/3/2004
POV? Seems a little skewed. Although I just saw some of his "people" at the VT/WVU game this weekend and can't say I agree with them at all. Also there needs to be some subject/verb agreement clean up in this article. Maybe when I get a minute? MaxPower 15:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Question about scare quotes, 10/22/2004
Should "self-crucifying lifestyle" be put in scare quotes? The meaning is pretty clear to me, but I grew up hearing crucify used metaphorically; seems to me like some readers might get the impression that he literally crucifies himself. ThePedanticPrick 23:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to ThePentanticPrick on scare quotes, 10/22/2004
"Self-crucifying lifestyle" is "loaded language" cult terminology. These words have a unique meaning to Woroniecki's theology as compared to other Christian sects. It means to live a life of suffering in obedience to God's law in order to elicit resurrection life. It is a real-time experience of dying to self and living to God. I was implying with the quotes that this was Woroniecki's personal interpretation of that phrase. In most sects, to be crucified with Christ is an act that took place in A.D. 28 when you believe in the present without self-righteous works of the law.

I have addressed you concern with a carifying revision.

Thanks for your interest. Do you think the article is becoming more NPOV with the references, other aspects of blame in the tragedy and defenses Woroniecki has made in denying responsibility? 22 Oct 2004

Response to MaxPower, Rewritten to reflect NPOV, 10/23/2004
I was not aware of the policy of NPOV and have since tried to modify the article to include different points of view and general references. I feel this damages the conciseness I desired for this entry, but I would rather not the article appear biased. I also examined words and claims that I personally know are true from private conversations with ex-followers and a consensus of about 100 hours of audio tapes I have examined from the preachers teachings but might create the appearance of non-neutrality, for example "delusion" was changed to "allusion" regarding Woroniecki's parallel between himself and Noah, and "Marriages have been divided" to a more gentle wording used in the source text as "marriages have been tested" which is the language used by author Susan O'Malley in her book about the Yates tragedy. 23 Oct 2004

Response to Kade's "may not be factually supported" tag on 5/16/2005, 6/14/2005
The material in the article is supported from material linked and referenced at the end of the article. There are also tape excerpts of Michael Woroniecki at an ex-follower's website supporting facts in the entry, particularly excerpts from the mentioned video. Can you be more specific about any facts being unsupported?

Good article, 10/23/2005
I just had an experience with a portion of the Woroniecki crew at the university I attend, and I can verify that the contents of this article -at least the contents pertaining to the Woroniecki's theology- are accurate. I was told that attending church is a sin and that my choice to pursue a college degree guarantees I am going to hell. They're not exactly objective-minded regarding their views; after reminding one of the girls the apostle Paul was a lawyer, she simply walked away.

I felt the need to add this because I am a Christian student (quite a conservative Christian student, I might add) and I believe people like this give us a bad name. Downright meanspirited and gratuitously abusive people. The Phelps clan (God Hates Fags) is kindhearted compared to the Woronieckis. They even give crackpots a bad name.

If you are seeking authentic, Biblical Christianity, run, don't walk, run away from the Woronieckis.

Removal of Kade's tag 1/22/2006
I left the tag Kade inserted in the article for over 7 months waiting for a response to the my question to him requesting specific examples of factual inaccuracies. Having no response from him or any other reader, and the fact that the article is well supported with the documentation referenced, I'm removing the tag.

In addition, the entry is now further documented by 7 articles from 3 university newspapers revealing the lawless, harassing nature of this so called evangelist and several of his key doctrines about college, the churches and his belief that "All are headed for hell." (Updated 1/29/2006)

Revision to talk page, 1/24/2006
Due to an honest misreading of the time order of these entries, a recent surveyor of this page replaced the POV check tag in the main body of this article not realizing the article had already been adjusted to reflect NPOV over 15 months ago.

Sometime after the revision, The POV tag was moved to this talk page by another participant, and it remained to give readers an opportunity to examine the major NPOV overhauling of this article. With that having been done, I am removing the POV check since the problem has apparently been properly addressed.

I have also restructured this talk page with headline text format and placed the entries in sequential order from oldest to newest to prevent further confusion in the future.

Feb. 2, 2006 edit
An unregistered user made an unexplained and unsupported edit to the introductory portion of this article. The purpose of that introductory section is to briefly characterize and identify the preacher as has been described by many professional media sources. Deleted were the terms "itinerant, verbally abrasive, 'fire and brimstone' "The editor also changed "many" professional media sources to "some."

Most if not all the articles I have read from college universities decribe this preacher as being very brazen to the point of harassment. Some of those articles are referenced at the bottom of the main article. This preacher was seen interviewed on ABC Good Morning America and NBC Dateline back in 2002. The attempt was made by each program to point out that the preacher's badgering character and condemnation contributed negatively to Andrea Yates mental decline. KTRK-ABC Houston and the Houston Chronicle covered the Yates tragedy very closely and also covered the abusive character of the preacher, particularly when he was banned from his hometown by the DA as a plea bargain in the case where he allegedly harrassed a woman to tears who was waiting in line to buy tickets for the Shriner circus and when he condemned an obviously ill Andrea Yates in 1998 that she was going to hell. Susan O'Malley and Suzy Spencer, the two authors who have investigatewd the preacher also characterize him this way. There is even an inclusion of Michael Woroniecki in a book called: The Big Bad Book of Mike. (I leave the reader to figure out the implication). Most newspapers reporting on the Yates case carried similar stories on the preacher. That is a matter of record.

The only media sources that I have ever seen that put Woroniecki in a positive light are the student newspaper of Central Michigan University where Woroniecki went to school (May 2002 issue, Michael Woroniecki preaches Jesus not Murder), and articles written by his documented elementary school buddie Steve Grinzcel of the Grand Rapids Press, obviously biased sources. Woroniecki once commented on one of his audio tapes that he grew up with Grinzcel, and met him in Spain during the 1992 Olympics, where Grinzcel is said to have told him that his "life was an oddessy." At least Grinzcel approached his story from a NPOV style.

Time magazine and Newsweek both looked into the bizarre character and influence of this preacher. Woroniecki himself complained that the "media" (generically used) was conspiring against him (O'Malley,p. 97). The "Christian rhetoric" he said they used were merely reports of his own beratings bizarre teachings and that had filled Yates' delusions and became part of the medical and trial record.

Rusty Yates himself has expressed to me how the majority of the media that comes to him tries to approach the cause of the tragedy as being sourced by the preacher and the lifestyle he imposed with his teachings. The majority of the media reporting on the Yates preacher does indeed report the minister as being psychologically abusive, and that this contributed to the mental decline of Andrea Yates.

POV rewrite
While it looks like that this article has gone through some POV wrangling, I still think that it has some POV statements and needs some restructuring. The problem is the authors of the article are clearly against Woroniecki and do not allow for neutral presentation of his views.

Statements like:

"As reported in many articles from the student newspapers of college campuses throughout the nation, Woroniecki preaches that seeking a college education is a sin, that working is part of the curse, and to have a job proves you are under the curse of Adam and Eve and headed for hell, despite the fact that Woroniecki himself sought a bachelors and masters degree all the while he claims to have been a Christian, pundits point out."

(Comment: These are all facts that have the support of 25 years of college newspaper reporting. There will soon be more articles available from the 80s, but many such articles are linked at an exer's site.)

"Woroniecki reads into "Hope for the Flowers" an unintended gospel message... "

(Comment: This is true. The woman who wrote the book is an environmentalist who never intended a Christian message.)

"Many of Woroniecki's teachings sound evangelically fundamentalist and mainstream, e.g., Jesus is God, Jesus is soon to return in judgment of hellfire and salvation is by faith through grace, not by works. However, several ex-followers warn that if Woroniecki really believed Jesus was God, he would do as Jesus says..."

(Comment: He really says things that are evangelically accurate, but if you review his media, you find blatant contradictions in his teaching that negate those evangelically sound ones. That is why the paragraph reads this way, showing that he does teach sound doctrine, but that his ex-followers warn that it's merely superficial.)

Each paragraph presents his views and then shows why they are wrong or contradictory. This does not need to be the case.-- Reflex Reaction  ( talk )• 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(Comment: Recommend a revision example and I'll revise the article with that pattern in mind.)

Example revisions
Thank you for the reply, but consider signing in and signing your responses so I know whom I am talking with. I agree that most of the stuff is probably factually accurate, but that doesn't mean that the portrayal has to be so blindingly against him. Please see NPOV. I'll just go with the first statement:

"As reported in many articles from the student newspapers of college campuses throughout the nation, Woroniecki preaches that seeking a college education is a sin, that working is part of the curse, and to have a job proves' you are under the curse of Adam and Eve and headed for hell, despite the fact that Woroniecki himself sought a bachelors and masters degree all the while he claims to have been a Christian, pundits point out. Although his children work menial minimum wage jobs when they are not on their preaching rounds, Woroniecki explains this is because it is solely for the sake of preaching the gospel. Woroniecki explains that he is no longer under the curse and that now, "God provides." Some of his ex-followers expose Woroniecki's doctrine as a cult tactic used to manipulate his follower into a weaker, isolated position of subservience to his gospel agenda, citing that if he is no longer under the curse as he says, then why is he still aging towards death, which is also a consequence of the curse?"


 * This would be much better worded something like...
 * Woroniecki holds controversial views including that college education is a sin, working is part of the curse of Adam and Eve . [The fact that it is reported by college newspapers is not relevant, but they should be cited as the source] He also states that having a job proves that you are under the curse of Adam and Eve and headed for hell. [Not everyone knows what the "curse of Adam" is, and it should be linked]


 * Despite these claims his children work minimum wage jobs to support the ministry and Woroniecki sought a bachelors and masters degree. [Removed menial (how do you know it is menial) and consolidated criticism into a single line]. Some critics including ex-followers claim that Woroneicki's doctrine isolates and manipulates followers into following his own gospel agenda. [The word "expose" is problematic, and the remaining text appears to be from a larger theological arguement that many people wouldn't know about].


 * "Woroniecki reads into "Hope for the Flowers" an unintended gospel message that in order to find salvation, one must isolate and endure hardship by coming out of the churches, hating your family, forsaking career and academic pursuits, fleeing the materialism inherent in the "yuppie" lifestyle, resisting the temptation to become married, endure humiliation and suffering from persecutions and preach at your place of employment until ready to leave it and assume the capacity of his prophetically itinerant calling, just as he has trained his own children to do."


 * (Comment: This is true. The woman who wrote the book is an environmentalist who never intended a Christian message.)


 * ''Agreed but something like...
 * Woroniecki interpreted the enivormentalist book "Hope for the Flowers" as a message about salvation. He believes in order to find salvation one must isolate themselves from previous social and religious ties as well as abandon his or her career. [This is much less accusatory but still accurate. Wikipedia is not the place to demonize someone. Even articles about Hitler must be accurate. Step back a few steps and think about what he does not what you think of him] -- Reflex Reaction  ( talk )&bull; 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick Comment on "Factual Inaccuracies"
The problem many seem to be having is that Michael Woroniecki's views are so extreme that reporting them factually strains the reporters' credibility.

Having been in the cult, seen him preach, read his tracts, it is very accurate to say that Michael Woroniecki condemns to hell anyone who (a.) goes to church (b.) goes to college or (c.) pursues a career.

He supports these ideas from scripture: (a.) "Come out of her, my people." Rev. 13 (b.)(c.) "Love not the world" -- John.

The amazing thing about Michael is this though: were you to leave church, leave college, stop pursuing a career, he would still condemn you to hell. He usually ends up simply saying that "You are not following Jesus" and finds some reason to support this claim.

This modus operandi is a confirmed fact by ex-followers, described at the sites mentioned at the bottom of the wiki entry. The Yates, for example, did nearly everything in their power to emulate the Woroniecki's: stop attending church, home school, gave their children Bible names, lived out of a van... But since Rusty couldn't find the faith to quit his NASA job, Michael condemned the Yates to hell. This fact Michael himself warned of in his Good Morning America interview.

Some things are nearly too incredible to be true. Unfortunately, the preaching rhetoric and modus operandi of Michael Woroniecki and his children fall into that category.

Note to POV Revisions
Thank you for your recommendations on NPOV revisions to this article. The problem in the past has been that people would read the article, tag it NPOV and move on without offering any input on how to go about making changes. You did, and I will take all you said into consideration.

You obviously write extremely well, and I envy that quality. However, before I engage in a major overhaul of this article, I need to be able to differentiate between demonizing someone and accurately reporting the truth.

I look forward to your reply.Thomas Anderson 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than engaging in a long task of supporting with citations statements made by me in this article (the blp tag was added sometime after I posted it, I'm just going to remove the content. It is sufficient to say that I needed information on how to convey the negative material about this preacher without appearing to "demonize him." Thomas Anderson 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Pls. stick to the facts
This guy has a huge "message" that is probably not encyclopedic. Please stay focused on the facts of this man's life: who, what, when, where. Getting into "why" makes the article twice as big as it should be. -- 67.116.254.9 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Let us keeps this to a "biography" format. It does not take the reader long to figure out that this guy has a "downer" message. That downer message got to Yates. Those are the facts. Now let us still to other facts: dates and places. If somebody wants to go an write a detailed "Woroniecki dogma" article and argue that it is notable, then let them try &mdash; but it should be a separate article. -- 67.116.254.9 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, where does this "fact" come from? "He left for the city of Atlanta, Georgia where high volume street preaching was permitted with the provision a bullhorn is not used." What do you mean "where high volume street preaching was permitted"? It's permitted in all public places. 136.181.195.45 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons Woroniecki was arrested in Grand Rapids was because he was too loud, which is a disturbing the peace misdemeanor. Apparently then, it is illegal to disrupt the activities of others with loud speech in Grand Rapids. On the other hand, Atlanta allows such high volume speech provided a bullhorn is not used. Grand Rapids Press, 1981

Reply to Last Entry
Thank you for making the labored revisions. You obviously handled it better than I would have, since I'm not familiar with the NPOV format. While the original "facts" are accurate, I believe what you are saying is that the focuse should be on factual details, not details of "why." I was going to take a shot at revising the article, but I became to swamped with the process of collecting, imaging and uploading documentation on this preacher, so that I could more easily footnote any seemingly incredual facts I originally reported on.Thomas Anderson 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"See Also" Revisions
This section was formerly deleted on the basis the article made no reference to Woroniecki's religion being a cult. Since Countercult.com, an independent, major cult authority stated the fact in their article on him that ministers or groups like Woroniecki may be or become a cult and/or exibit the charateristics of cults and its leaders, I included the quote in the article and replaced the internal links with Cult and Cult checklist so that people can decide for themselves based on the referenced articles and websites, if Woroniecki's religious movement is a cult.

However, after reviewing Destructive cult, I removed it because Woroniecki hasn't directly or intentionally killed anyone (yet) as far as I can tell, even though Andrea's delusions and actions were based on the logical outcome of his teaching ministry toward her (see article for assertions and citations). Becoming a Destructive cult may become a future eventuality for the Woronieckis, though, as Mr. Woroniecki has openly fantasized about a martyr's death for his family. (Michael Woroniecki, Audio Ministry, 1992 Audio excerpt) Thomas Anderson 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Woroniecki's Influence on Andrea Yates (formerly: Yates Case)
On or about Nov. 1, 2006, someone introduced a paragragh of documented information concerning the Andrea Yates case to the "Yates Case" section of this article. While the information concerning Saeed and Rusty Yates bears tremendously on the severity of Andrea's illness and why she was able to act on her delusions, it deviates from the focus of the article which is the biography of Michael Woroniecki and what his contributions to Andrea's actions were.

This article once tried to include all facets of why Andrea Yates killed her children in order to put Woroniecki's contributions in context, (psychiatric bungling, negligent and willful husband, etc.) but it made the article much longer than it should otherwise be. When the article was overhauled for NPOV by a well educated and seasoned writer, much of the original material discussing other elements of the case were eliminated by him/her, leaving only aspects of Woroniecki's influence on Yates intact. I agree with the editor's decision to leave out the "whys" of the case (see above in "Pls. stick to the facts"). I only disagree with his/her heading of "Yates case," as I feared it would invite discussion that focuses on Yates rather than Woroniecki, and so it finally did--thus I revised the heading to keep the subject matter focused on the preacher. The biography should be about Woroniecki and his life, as it also relates to hers, not Yates' life as it involves the actions of others.

That's not to say Woroniecki was the only contributing factor to Andrea's disease, emotional and hormonal disposition, delusions or actions, but those facets are better introduced into the Andrea Pia Yates entry which is linked from this article. Thomas Anderson 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

ANother article regarding Woroniecki.
I just wanted to give a link to the college article we wrote when Michael Woroniecki visited the Weber State Campus. Here's the Link I hope it helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.36.66.165 (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Question
I would like to know if Woroniecki has any relationship with the CIA, FBI or MKULTRA?


 * Very funny. When Woroniecki isn't haranguing sinners on his fall campus tours, he lives in a trailer park in Henderson, NV, which is about 20-40 miles south of Area 51, though. This relationship is coincidental, as the most likely reason he lives in NV is because there are no state taxes on his children's income, which according to ex-disciples of his (see main article for website links) has been the central support of his ministry since having been connected to Andrea Yates by the media in 2002. His kids have worked at Chuck E. Cheese's and a Home Depot in Las Vegas in recent years, his wife worked for a time at KMart as a register clerk, and he worked at Home Depot but was allegedly fired after two weeks.72.84.66.147 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you would like to know? After all, if they told you, they might have to kill you...Eaglizard 07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Material
I have deleted most of the first section on the grounds that the parts that weren't actually POV were quotes from sources describing generic traits of cults and cult leaders, not specifically about Mr. Woroniecki. However, I agree that his movement might have the potential to be a cult (although it can hardly be called a "movement"). However, the removed material was not appropriate, especially for such a prominent placement in the article. (For the curious, I left said paragraph commented out in the text, so go have a look). Eaglizard 08:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The quotes were from an unbiased cult site's page about Woroniecki, and they were implying his potentiality as a cult with them. That's neither here or there, though. I like the way you eloquently encapsulated the idea into one sentence. Keep it that way. Thomas Anderson 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph Getting Very Ugly
I removed the phrase "notoriously known", since it is just a bit redundant, I think, and it's repetitive, too, as well. ;)
 * roger that, but notorious is better than just known, because the predominant view, even by Woroniecki, is that he is infamous because of it Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also reworded the first 'graph a bit... we're swinging back towards POV I think, a rather easy thing to do here, I admit, but we're better than that, now aren't we? :^)
 * No, the quotes clearly imply what you added--the quote is from the cited article and implies how he has been described. What you added makes the sentence wordy and redundant in light of the quotation and reference.
 * Woroniecki calls himself "Mike War," because of his "warlike" character. "Belligerent" means warlike and agressive. This is not a slanderous POV characterization. It is an accurate jouranlistic representation of what media in Grand Rapids observed for over 18 months and what he has demonstrated with his own 1994 video video --Woroniecki doesn't deny his tactics are aggressive or violent. He compares his tactics to the way a fireman goes into a burning house and forcefully removes people, not asking them nicely to come out or trying to reason with them. videoThomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I'd like to register my objections to what has become of the first paragraph of this article ... not the actual text, but the "source text". With all those (reasonably unnecessary) lengthy quotes from cites (which users do not see anyways), the paragraph has gotten almost unbearably difficult to edit properly. I also happen to think all those superscripts make the 'graph look ugly, too, as users see it, but that's just MHO. Thing is, I don't feel like mucking about with it tonite.


 * I thought it would be helpful to delete the 2k of archived POV deletion you placed in the body of the 1st paragragh's editing text, so I did. I'm satified the archived text doesn't need to be there after the wonderful encapsulation you made to replace it. That should lighten things up a bit.Thomas Anderson 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a biographical article of a living person. If you remove those seemingly "unnecessary" quotes, someone will remove the referenced content in the main body of the bio basing it on lack of supportive information (especially in the case of a purchasable transcript from ABC which is no longer accessible online), and reinserting that info and explaining why this was done is a hassle. The quotations are mainly in the footnotes because it would make the visible article too cumbersome to be in the main body. It also allows the reader to verify the content of the citation, particularly in potentially libelous cases where the citation is not available on line. That is what footnotes are for, clarification.


 * Remember, Woroniecki is a VERY unusual, controversial public figure, and it is reasonable to expect many citations as Wiki encourages, especially when many of the things Woroniecki has "allegedly" done are quite browlifting, like using multiple aliases, pushing a police officer, acting provocative and belligerent and "allegedly" causing a woman to break down in tears as a result of being singled out and followed down a Grand Rapids street, even informing the delusions of a child killer. (These allegations are documented in the main article.) Wiki definitely suggests using multiple citations for an assertion like the last allegation, and so it has. It's a potentially libelous statement that has sound, multiple source verification. Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a final note, for Thomas Anderson, do you really think "character" is an appropriate word to introduce there?


 * Yes--his exfollowers do describe him as abusive, delusional, narcissistic, and having a moral code that is extremely flexible and self determined.


 * Abusive--http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/TexasAM.html http://hometown.aol.com/tensiontally/predator.html http://hometown.aol.com/niek0/suicide.html http://hometown.aol.com/niek0/destroyer.html http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/advice.html http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/methods.html http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/tactics.html


 * Delusional--http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/Noah.html


 * Narcissistic--http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/photo.html http://hometown.aol.com/tensiontally/hellbullies.html


 * Variable morals--http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/cash.html (see "Jacob Doctrine")


 * If you also look at the cult expert website at Countercult.com, you will see his behavior while evangelizing was described as "despicable," and his character and doctrine are questioned as dangerous (to at least to one woman), even suggesting the possiblity of eventually or already having degenerated into demonstrating cult-like teaching and behavior.Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I understand what you're going for, of course, but it seems a stretch to say that the sources have stated his character is "cult-like and dangerous". I'm sure they consider it that, as do I, but have they really come out and attacked his character? Don't they mostly stick to attacking his absurd doctrines?


 * That's only half of it. They attack both in full measure. This is a very carefully researched and documented article. Please be careful when moving material around or inserting words. It can radically change the intended meaning of the information. Sometimes your brilliant changes blow me away, and I wonder how you did that because it's so perfect. Sometimes the rework I have to do to repair the article blows me away, haha!


 * Also, points of POV require careful examination of the sources. The story of Woroniecki's arrest in Casablanca and his tumble with Spanish police officers came almost verbatim right out of the video documented in the Yates trial. I don't think Woroniecki is trying to slander himself.


 * As a more specific example, you interjected the word "allegedly" in: "In 1995, he and his family preached at Casablanca, Morocco, where they allegedly incited a riot of angry Muslims, resulting in the family's arrest." This was unnecessary, as the source is verifiably Woroniecki's own accounting of the incident as told to a newsreporter of the Grand Rapids Press, who is also a friendly former schoolmate of Woroniecki's, and who will respond to Woroniecki's request to do an "exclusive interview." (see material referenced to 6 and 10. Point is, Woroniecki trusts Grinzcel above the entire US media to give what he deems a fair interview.


 * It's also verifiable through the video documented at the final Yates trial where Woroniecki says exactly this:
 * "CASABLANCA CHRISTIANS - USA TODAY (European edition distributed in Spain, June 2, 1995) A US missionary couple and their six children were arrested in Morocco after they marched down the main street with a large cross, distributing leaflets preaching Christ. A duty officer at the United States Embassy in Casablanca said Michael (they spelled my name wrong) Woroneki and his family had been released. Moroccan law makes it an offense to preach religions other than Islam, the state religion, Le Daily Opin-ion, (which is a French paper in Morocco) said the Oregon family caused a near riot when they were chased by angry Moroccans who took offense at the leaflets proclaiming Jesus - the Son of God." Woroniecki does not disagree with the article. In fact, the video shows he's elated with it.


 * I might add that further into the segment of the video, it becomes clear what actually set off the "near riot." Woroniecki called Jesus Christ "Allah." No kidding. It's no wonder the anrgy Muslims rocked his van and broke out its windows, as the Grand Rapids Press article reported.


 * If you listen to the media excerpt from the video in the case where he pushed the Spanish police officer, you will find an obvious point not mentioned in the bio, that he is "spiritually" justifying those violent/provocative behaviors. I didn't think it was important to delve that far into Woroniecki's bizarre character for POV reasons since it is sufficient to document the facts of his belligerent style/character, not explain the why.


 * These are notable events of his preaching career, and Woroniecki himself is very proud of these moments, as he ocassionally repeats these stories in his tracts and to the media. It's important that people accurately understand his "belligerent style." I've added nothing to his report of these incidents, and kept out POV analysis of why he did these things.Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But, if you're really happy with it, it's not an issue for me either way, really. Eaglizard 10:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's him in a nutshell. Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reassess
This article seriously needs to be reassessed for class in the various Wikiprojects under which it falls. It shows much of the refinement of a 5 year old article and is nowhere near a stub. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
There are some serious neutrality issues with this article. It's difficult to know where to start, so I'm going to pull out all of the poor quality sourcing, and anything solely supported by those sources. Then we'll see what is left and work from there. Kevin (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to read the text of the sources in the intro before making global deletions of sources and text. O'Malley described Woroniecki's influence on Yates as "leading her to ruin" on p. 109 of her book. Apologeticsindex.org is an unbiased site documenting and defining cults and religious organizations, and they characterized him as a "a cult of Christianity". There are also legitimate sources of news articles depicting Woroniecki's character and teachings as cult-like or dangerous from both ex-followers, a lawyer and two PhD professionals of psychiatry. While there were two sites by ex-followers describing the preacher as cult-like, they are still available for review at archive.org by adding the original link to www.archive.org/.


 * Whether all the other remarks by ABC, NBC, O'Malley, Spencer and exf-ollowers (quoted in major news and publisher media) are accurate or not isn't the question here. The fact is these people did criticize this preacher in such a way, and the statement entry is valid and supported.


 * The multiple variations of names for the preacher "Warnecki, Worneki, War, etc." are noted in Spencer's book Breaking Point even though one of the names (Shabar Ben) is only verifiable through his own media.


 * Are you even reading the legitimate sources before deleting them? If the sources aren't available online, consider that they once were and check them by consulting archive.org. It is wiki policy that even if a source is no longer available online, the source is still good as a reference provided it is a legitimate source: newspapers, TV network news and books from major publishers are all high grade sources. Many of the references in "Are You There Alone" and "Breaking Point" by O'Malley and Spencer can be verified online through Google Books if you don't have a reference copy.71.251.183.240 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As an example of not verifying sources before deletion consider the following University article which you deleted that collected information from ex-followers, a lawyer, a University psychology professor who all depict woroniecki's character and teachings as cult-like and dangerous by virtue of the nature of the descriptions provided:


 * http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/09/09-30-04tdc/09-30-04dnews-17.asp


 * Former followers of traveling preachers who visited Penn State last week are warning against the effects of the preachers' message....


 * David De La Isla, a former "disciple" who met the preacher while attending Texas A&M University, said he tried to commit suicide twice after he began following Woroniecki.


 * "I reached a point of total desperation where I had nothing to lose," he said.


 * Another former follower of Woroniecki was Andrea Yates, said Yates' defense attorney George Parnham.


 * Woroniecki told Yates her children were going to hell, which might have caused her to drown her five young children in her family's bathtub in June 2001, said Jeanne Slattery, a Clarion University psychology professor.


 * "She believed that her children were ruined already, and would only be ruined more by staying with her," Slattery said. "The way they could be saved and go to heaven was to die before [the age of] 12."


 * "He provided the basis for the psychotic delusions that Andrea Yates experienced that led to the murders of her children," Parnham said....


 * Slattery said Yates was already suffering from depression and Woroniecki's influence may have led to her actions.


 * "The combination of a vulnerable person and a charismatic leader is a really dangerous one," Slattery said....


 * Lance Corlew met Woroniecki at University of Akron and in 1983 introduced the preacher to his wife, Isoan Corlew.


 * Isoan Corlew said the Woronieckis told her she needed to try harder to be a good mother so her children could be saved.


 * "I went into depression for years," she said. "Of course I don't want my children to go to hell. I think she was going through the same thing. There was no hope there."


 * ... Lance Corlew warns against listening to the Woroneckis' message. "Run far away," he said. "Just get away."71.251.183.240 (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the legitimate news or book references have been removed. The personal sites of ex-followers are neither reliable or neutral enough to consider using as a reference, and have been removed. Kevin (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, that's because the legitimate citations were replaced by me after your removed some of them. Apparently in your haste you removed several references to Grand Rapids newspapers and the University newspaper above as well, and they were reinstated by me afterwards. Once you removed them, there were no citations at all to support two sections of text, and you errantly deleted that as well.


 * The ex-follower sites are not reliable enough for quality citations and were removed by you, but in many places they weren't the primary sources for citations, they merely archived quality sources of some of the cited news articles, and provided raw materials that demonstrated what Suzy Spencer said in her book Breaking Point (a quality source) about Woroniecki's used of aliases. I didn't reinstate any of them since they are now dead links, and any that served as the only citation, I left removed because as you said, they aren't quality references.71.251.183.240 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets look at this statement that you replaced: His character and teachings have been criticized as cult-like and dangerous by some cult experts, professionals of psychiatry, and ex-followers. Now a strong claim is made here, that requires very careful sourcing. The first 2 sources are to Apologetics Index, clearly not a reliable or neutral source for this claim. The rest include some reliable sources, but none that directly support this statement. It is a synthesis of those sources. Now this statement may well be true, but we need to source it much better.


 * I think the mistake you are making in evaluating these "unreliable" sources (barring the ex-follower websites which no longer exist) is that you do not understand the nature of the religious sites that have evaluated Woroniecki's movement based on quality news reports that are quoted or reproduced in their evaluations of him and that the sites are not biased by ex-followers.


 * Apologetics Index is a cult expert site that has documented thousands of religious movements and given a synopsis of that information to describe the nature of the movement. They simply collect news on religious movements and report it in a unbiased, neutral format. To say it is "clearly" not neutral is to not understand their organization. It is the premiere expert online about religious movements. To say it is not a reliable source is like prejudging Wikipedia as a unreliable encyclopedia, on the basis that it is not comparable to an established encyclopedia like Britannica, even though it is the first place most people go to online for their encyclopedic information. Apologetics Index is not biased by ex-followers of Michael Woroniecki. It bases it's synopsis of a movement on the news it has gathered and posted about a subject. It reported essentially what it found in the news, that his "behavior while preaching is despicable", that organizations such as his that adhere to bad biblical practice tend to devolve into "cults", and later on at a different page of their site, they gave their opinion below a new article about his movement that he was a "one family cult of Christianity". These claims are born out in the other higher quality news articles because the claim is based on those news articles. The only thing that is being supported her is that a popular cult and religious movement expert has made the claim, not that Woroniecki is actually a cult. There is a fine line there that I think you are not discerning.


 * Apologetics Index does not meet the wiki test for a "questionable source" having a poor reputation for fact checking, extremism, promotionalism, or hearsay. It is used as a reliable resource on a highly reviewed wiki page on the Church of Scientology as a citation:


 * Wikipedia: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.


 * Midwest Christian Outreach published a story on Yates and examined the teachings of her preacher, and based on their expertise in examining cults found key elements of his teachings to be instrumental in the deaths of her children. The story is filed under "Dangerous Cults in the News" and specifically used the word "cultic" in the article to describe his teachings. Midwest Christian Outreach is not affiliated with ex-followers of Woroniecki and therefore offers an unbiased characterization of his teachings and movement. The teachings are claimed to be dangerous because the expert said these resulted in the deaths of her children. The claim in the entry is not that Woroniecki is a cult but rather than an expert of cults has made that claim.


 * Again, the assertion is not that Woroniecki IS cult-like or dangerous in the entry. Rather, that cult experts have DESCRIBED his teachings and character as cult-like and/or dangerous. That is weaker than labeling him as a cult so it is not really a strong statement at all. It merely states that people of expertise or people who have intimately known the preacher are describing him that way. You may still be of the persuasion that these sites are biased and unreliable. Please name two sources that you feel can qualify as unbiased and reliable sources for describing a religious movement as cult like or dangerous.


 * Dr. Jeanne Slattery, a professor of psychology specifically DESCRIBED Woroniecki's charimatic character as "dangerous" (the word used in the entry) particularly to a mentally weak individual such as Andrea Yates. That supports the claim that a professional of psychology has specifically depicted his character as "dangerous." She also explains that his teachings motivated Yates to act to kill her children. That characterizes his teaching as "dangerous". That fully supports the entry.


 * Dr. Lucy Puryear, a licensed psychologist said on ABC that Woroniecki's "teachings" exacerbated her delusions and in her professional opinion were responsible for her deadly actions. The words cult-like or dangerous weren't used, but clearly the context of teachings leading to deadly actions support the entry that a professional psychiatrist has claimed his teachings are "dangerous".


 * The University news article interviewed three former followers or Woroniecki. One said she became depressed because his teachings provided no hope for her or her children, that she understood the pressure that was not only detrimental to her emotionally, but to Yates as well. Clearly this depicts a follower characterizing his teachings as dangerous. Another said something similar, that he became so depressed he contemplated suicide--the influence is depicted as dangerous.


 * The Dallas Morning News reported a follower describing his involvement with Woroniecki as being "brainwashed in a cult". KTRK in Houston Texas reported that some have described him as a cult leader". This supports the "cult-like" characterization of the entry.


 * The only mistake I see here is not that the sources are unreliable, but that they are lumped together or "synthesized" as you said to support one concise idea. Perhaps the solution is to simply make a more compartmentalized entry that can point more specifically to each article separately. The entry was designed to be merely concise, suitable for an introductory paragraph.

The rest of this article is in a similar state. A lot of poorly sourced claims, and synthesis of various sources. Certainly there is a neutral article buried in here, and I suspect that it will not show Woroniecki in a rosy light, but we must do better than we have done to date, using impeccable sources, and writing in a neutral manner. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are not "a lot of poorly sourced claims" as you allege. This use of your language here is revealing that you do not understand the legal purpose of the personal pages linked in the article. You have already removed the unreliable AOL and Geocities sites. The majority of the article is supported by ABC Prime Time, ABC Good Morning America, NBC Dateline, Grand Raids Press, Dallas Morning News, United Press International, and the books "Are You There Alone?", and "Breaking Point". Your statement "A lot of poorly sourced claims" is overreaching and detrimentally hostile to an informed understanding of the article. Synthesis can be dealt with by better identifying which source supports which idea. That is merely an exercise of de-lumping and sorting. It does not lead to the characterization of "poorly sourced claims". Your editing as demonstrated in this article is undiscerning and reckless. I hope you would learn to be more careful discerning the purpose of some citations before exercising your delete operations. As long as there are quality sources preceding the links to personal pages (which only provided copies of the quality source, deletion of an entry, which you have done twice here, is not warranted.


 * I don't think you are familiar with the history of this article. If you had examined it closely, you will see that it went through a major NPOV rewrite and neutrality dispute almost 6 years ago. I think the only new objection that merits attention is that the citations can used some de-lumping and more direct association with ideas in the article.


 * Describe "impeccable sources" better than the newspapers, books and TV news that support this article as listed above. I think the error you have made is assuming that because there were ex-follower website links in this article that it is poorly sourced in general. When you deleted the Grand Rapids news citations associated with the AOL links, You clearly did not realize that the AOL site links were mostly just supplying links to images or html text of the quality news reports, not opinions formed on those sites. You deleted the aliases of this preacher that were clearly sourced by Suzy Spencer's book simply because AOL links provided copies of the documents she had based her statements on.


 * I do however see that some statements regarding his early years and preaching career were only sourced by personal websites. Those are few (not "a lot") but they could use better sourcing or be deleted. That isn't the case with the more defamatory characterizations on this preacher regarding Yates and his influence on her. Those are based on sources from news agencies, mainstream publishers and evidence archived from the second Yates trial mentioned in quality sources.


 * I realize the article is very "negative" about the preacher, but you have to realize that if you go to the encyclopedia entry for Hitler, you aren't going to find a lot of "positive" reporting there, either. Negative reporting is not a basis for non-neutrality, especially when those negative facts are based on quality sources. History depicts Hitler as a monster because that is what the researched evidence reveals. Woroniecki appears like a monster, not because the sources are of low quality but because that is the way the quality sources reveal him. The "poor sources" that were in this article, in most cases, aren't the principle foundation of the article, (they weren't foundational at all), and the article still stands on its own without them. That is where your mistake in perception here is. The AOL links were mostly just helping links complementing the quality citations, links to copies of the quality media sources. In most cases the AOL links merely offered the reader an opportunity to access documentation of materials cited that could not be otherwise accessed easily. If you read the wiki policy on quality ranking of sources, you would realize that the original documentation of his own published materials isn't entirely forbidden either. When mentioned and cited in quality sources first, having access to those actually becomes helpful but doesn't detract from the original quality citation. You have to understand that in this article, that is what the AOL pages were predominately serving as--a secondary reference to original materials of the preacher mentioned in a quality citation. The quality source supports the claim in the article, and the AOL pages provided a means to verify what is in the quality citation. A personal website is a poor source is when the entry is supported by personal views of the author, not, for example, when it supplies copies of difficult to access newspaper articles that date back to 1981. Please reassess your understanding of how these personal websites were being used--to enhance the verifiability of the quality citations.71.251.183.240 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the definition of wiki:synthesis, and I would concede that the claims should be more carefully worded to line up with the intent of the cited articles. I think the error was in trying to make a consensus of those citations into a more easily digested encapsulation to appear less busy. Let me think about how to better comply with the spirit of wiki:synthesis so that the presentation can adhere more accurately to the citations. If I remember correctly, the consolidation was made by another editor not familiar with the story. I consented to the change because it made a much broader paragraph simple and to the point, more becoming of an introductory paragraph.71.251.183.240 (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, to be entirely acurate with the citations, I have epxanded the abbreviated entry to accomodate 5 citations so that it is clear which citations point to what claims:


 * His teachings and behavior while preaching have been criticized as unorthodox and despicable by a prominent and reputable website resource on religious movements, sects and cults, and may have led his follower Andrea Yates to kill her children (1). Some of his former followers including the religious movement resource above have described the preacher's sect as a cult (1)(2)(4), his former followers adding that his influence had depressed them, one to the point of contemplating suicide.(3). A professor of psychology at Clarion University(3) and a licensed psychiatrist from Baylor University(5) have both come forward and stated that Woroniecki's teachings(3)(5) and charismatic influence(3) were instrumental in why a mentally ill Andrea Yates was motivated to kill her children.


 * 1) Apologetics index


 * 2) KTRK


 * 3) Penn State University


 * 4) Dallas Morning News


 * 5) ABC


 * That statement doesn't rely on unreputable sources according to Wiki questionable sources, it is diverse enough to identify which citation is claiming what, and no conclusions have been drawn. I haven't installed the entry yet so let me know what you think.71.251.183.240 (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is better sourced, but I think the lead should be left until last. It's supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, you have some valid points above. Why don't we take a step back and discuss sources rather than content'. My view is that the bulk of the article should be written from the top 9 or 10 newspaper articles, plus the books by O'Malley and Spencer. Other reliable sources can be used for a minority of material.

On some specific sources, both Apologetics Index and rickross.com have been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, as have the college newspapers. In summary the opinions there were:
 * Apologetics Index - "a notable Christian countercult site run by Anton Hein, whom Rick Ross, a notable anti-cult activist, has characterised as a fugitive sex offender" (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24)
 * rickross.com - here the general consensus is that this site is suitable for referencing Ross' opinion in places where that is suitable, and as a convenience link to reliable news sources. This second point is contentious, as many feel that we are linking to a copyright violation, and that we should provide a link to the original source or not at all (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11 & Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_43).


 * wiki: synthesis applies to your reposted logic here. Let's structure this argument as the synthesis definition does. Anton Hein runs Apologetics Index, a notable Christian countercult site, BUT he is a fugitive sex offender. OR Anton Hein runs Apologetics Index, a notable Christian countercult site, AND he is a fugitive sex offender. You are reposting this argument to question the reputability of his information to eliminate it as a candidate here in THIS article. Which of the two statements implies that, the first or the second? If the first, then you are implying that his criminal record handicaps the accuracy of his work. This is synthesis, which you claim you understand, but apparently not here since you are using it to imply his statements concerning Woroniecki are unreliable with regard to its accuracy. The second fact has nothing to do with the accuracy of his work. What you should be doing is judging the accuracy of his work by the definition of wiki: questionable sources, not using his private or legal life to say If A and B THEN C. One has nothing to do with the other. Back to the definition. Does he use hearsay? Are his resources on which he is making his synopsis for his index entry on Woroniecki unreliable? Is he merely forwarding rumors? Or is he working with facts from quality sources to form a synopsis of this man's behavior in public, his teachings and his possible influence on Yates? I'm surprised at you for using a synthesis argument to refute this source after having directed my attention to it.


 * The Daily Collegian, Collegiate Times and other college papers. Opinions here are that these sources are on the edge of reliability, and must be carefully assessed on a case by case basis. The general feeling is that they are reliable enough for reporting events that took place on campus, and nothing more. Useful for reporting what took place at a college demonstration, for example (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11).


 * Then let's evaluate each University or college atricle on a case to case basis rather than on a "feeling". The article is merely an interview with three ex-followers, two lawyers, and a professor of psychology who has a background in studying the Yates case. One follower, Delaisla, has been the most outspoken ex-follower mentioned in articles and telecasts such as Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, KTRK News and ABC Good Morning America, only to name a few, and he said nothing different in this Penn State article than he has said in these quality sources. The same applies to the lawyers. The Clarion Professor of Psychology merely repeated what defense expert Dr. Lucy Puryear said in similar quality articles. So far the content of the article is supported by quality sources. The unknown is Dr. Jeanne M. Slattery. You could certainly validate her testimony to verify the accuracy of the reporting by going to the Clarion University website and under Psychology find her email address and satisfy yourself with one simple inquiry: Dr Slattery, were you interviewed in this article and did the reporter faithfully represent what you told her? When and if she agrees, the likelyhood is that the reporter faithfully represented the facts collected and the rest of the article, what little remains beyond that is likewise reliable.


 * As far as the Collegiate Times reporting that Woroniecki has been banned from that school for violating certain solicitation policies, I don't see how that conflicts with what even you agree is usable because it was an event that took place on campus. The reporter simply interviewed the school officials, and the school officials allowed the article to become print. I see nothing at all unreliable about the credibility of Virginia Tech officials.


 * These school news articles are not commentary of questionable reliability; they are verifiably factual interviews of key players in the Yates drama and school officials. There were no citation links to AOL pages that led to opinions of that author, only documents of quality sources and primary sources, materials of the preacher, evidence used in the Yates trial and mentioned in quality sources.


 * I think you are over generalizing away articles that are verifiably accurate and therefore reliable. I think the only problem with this article has been inadvertant synthesis and perhaps a few primary sources that had no other quality sources associated with them to support them. The citations could use some degrouping, and the wordings associated with those consolidated sources looked at more carefully to make sure nothing was implied beyond the facts in the articles.

I am reluctant to use these sources for any controversial information at all. The second point above is also a good reason not to link to the article copies that were on AOL, although they are no longer there, and the internet archive did not keep copies. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Woroniecki is controversial, but if the sources prove reliable by accurate representation of the facts according to wiki:questionable resources, you have to allow them.


 * The copies on AOL, as I've already said, were merely primary and secondary source materials of the quality sources or mentioned in the quality sources. It is good enough that a quality source is cited, but if the quality source is online for verification, verification is better than none. Regardless, the AOL links were beside the quality citations in the article. You deleted both not recognizing the other, then removed two sections of text once there were no supporting sources. Do you understand the reckless nature of that inattentive action in both instances you deleted content? I'm not yet persuaded that you are.71.251.183.240 (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Look there's no point in us continuing this facade. I see what's going on here. You Kevin deleted external links on this page according to wiki rules then added the Woroniecki's family's blog. You could only do that at their request with their permission according to the rule you cited for deleting the old ones. It's now clear either you or Wikipedia have been privately contacted by the Woroniecki's and intimidated or seduced into weakening the article and supplant their propoganda with the link to their unsourced pages full of circular logic and unsourced claims, not one they posted but YOU provided, with their consent. You really should be ashamed of yourself for acting under such intimidation. Were you aware they have been asking almost anyone posting legitimate quality news articles about them online to remove the sources or in the least link their site to their blog? Since I can't fight a war with an official Wikipedia sanctioned hit, you might as well do whatever recklessly destructive thing you have already been doing and intend to continue to do. I only request that you go back and restore the quality article citations you inadvertenly deleted when you deleted the aol links that merely pointed to quality secondary sources. There are others, you just weren't paying attention. I'm out of here. Good luck, hitman. ;) 71.251.183.240 (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're overreacting here. The external links policy is clear about what is and is not allowed. "Official" sites belonging to the subject are supposed to be in the article, whether we like them or not. Most other links should have their material incorporated into the article, where possible. I can continue on my own if you like, but I would prefer you to stick around.
 * On the AOL links, what possible use are they? AOL has been disbanded, and the internet archive did not archive those pages. They are gone. Nothing either of us can do about that. Kevin (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits
I quote the Wikipedia Guidelines about biographies of living persons.

''“We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is un-sourced or poorly sourced- whether the material is negative, positive, neutral or just questionable- should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion.”''

Based upon these guidelines I am removing all the contentious material concerning the Wikipedia page about Michael Peter Woroniecki. The administrators of Wikipedia have made a commitment to me to edit this article into an unbiased and neutral state. I see my efforts as assisting them to make this happen. This article incites hatred against living persons in their day to day lives, jobs and relationships. I will add nothing to the article at this time that might seem to promote a favorable image of our ministry. I will simply remove the defamatory and libelous contentious claims.

I would also like to inform whoever edits this page that there is a cyber bully who has been constantly monitoring and editing this page for the past 6 years. This one individual, who is not a relative, lawyer, reporter or in any way, shape or form related to the article, is using the Wikipedia space to vent his own vexation of hatred by exploiting the controversial nature of such a preacher. He is using many IP addresses and user names to do the edits, but if anyone knew who this individual was he would be discounted from making any reliable edits to the article. Vindictive opinions are not substantiated facts. Concerning any notable individual one could gather up all the negative gossip (especially on the internet) on them and write a Wiki article as if it were a tabloid. I do not believe that this is the purpose of Wikipedia.
 * There are others who agree with the original article, not just one disgruntled ex-Woroniecki follower as you imply.Jibbytot (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cyber Bully, venting hatred, exploitive, vindictive opinions... an interesting characterization coming from someone who insists on that all demafatory remarks that are poorly sourced or unsourced should be promptly removed.71.251.183.240 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the acceptability of my edits on this article as regards my relation to the subject, I quote Wiki guidelines:

''“Dealing with edits by the subject of the article Shortcut: WP:BLPEDIT

In some cases subjects may become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material.”'' JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just taking a look at this from Special:RecentChanges. I'd advise you to be careful- historically organizations have attempted to remove negative information from their articles on Wikipedia, and this is dangerous territory. Also, I'm looking at this record of your changes so far, and some of the changes I agree with, no doubt about that. But some things you're removing appear to be properly and reliably sourced. Indeed, you deleted a referenced section about his attempt to raise a woman from the dead, but used the same reference to write a shorter paragraph about attempting to reform the church. Could you justify this, please? ALI nom nom 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello ALI,

The reference did not support the claim about raising her from the dead. However, it did validate the statement about reform in the church so I left it alone.

On another note, I have spent several weeks reading all the Wiki Guidelines concerning Biographies of Living Persons. For this reason I am only (at this time) deleting unsourced/poorly sourced information, defamatory claims, contencious, unbiased, non-neutral and non-encyclopedic material. Keep in mind that just because something can be sourced, it does not mean it is necessary to be included in the article. Also, Wiki Guidlines state that any original information about non-public individuals needs to have two high quality sources. Please feel free to correct or assist me in this effort. It is unique from other situations because it is not a compilation of many users but primarily one user who has a personal agenda (explained in my previous comments). I'm sure any minute now he will be posting a long rant here confirming everything I've said. I could explain more but I do not think it is appropriate to post such information here unless it becomes absolutely necessary.

JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why not, but if you'd like to email, that's fine. You can set up email in your Wikipedia account and send me something through that. I probably won't be able to respond until tonight, though. ALI nom nom 18:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is now a joke. Joshua Woroniecki clearly has a conflict of interest here. He is destructively "assisting" wikipedia by removing content that was clearly sourced by Suzanne O'Mmally's book. This is clearly vandalism, conflict of interest and promotion by virtue of destroying validly sourced content. His edits are highly questionable and clarly biased.71.251.183.240 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In his correspondance with me Joshua Has clearly stated that he realises his preferred version is biased the other way from the current article, which is why it is so important to find a neutral middle ground. That said, your bias is also crystal clear. Kevin (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion about this article and people editing is inappropriate to be discussed in private email. That it is seen as appropriate reflects on the poor judgment of the wikipedians that are being manipulated in this way. Thieves do their best work in the dark. I would hope that Wikipedia would not allow this encyclopedia to become a den of thieves by allowing private email discussion of neutrality issues. 71.251.183.240 (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Email contact through the OTRS system is an extremely common way for article subjects to get in touch with us, and is neither inappropriate nor underhanded or manipulative. Kevin (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Several employees complain about another employee to their manager. The accused is reprimanded and eventually fired. He is not told what he is accused of and neither does he know whom his accusers are under the auspices of protecting the accuser's privacy. He can't defend himself under such circumstances. Such private discourse is likewise suspect. It provides an opportunity for manipulation and lies without appearing that way to the public. The appearance of entertaining such private discourse then acting on behalf of the Woronieckis in a proven RECKLESS fashion weakens your credibility. It's not surprising at all; therefore, that you don't see the inappropriateness of your behavior.72.64.46.234 (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Woroniecki is not a public individual is falacious. He is nothing but public in his open air preaching, and all the media about him since 1980, whether in print, radio or televised--it is abundant. To allow this misleading classification that Woroniecki is a non-public entity would only undermine the credibility of Wikipedia.71.251.183.240 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not been contacted by email, and I see 71.251's point regarding that kind of private interaction. Ugh... this whole dispute is a mess, and I'm not sure I feel comfortable dealing with it. But it hasn't reached that stage yet, so let's see if we can work things out here, hm? First of all, can Joshua justify the deletion of sourced material as previously asked, please? (And for God's sake, will you people indent?! Gaah!) ALI nom nom 01:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that there will be negative information about Woroniecki on this page once it is completed and neutral. I have gone through every proper Wiki channel and am trying to follow all of the guidelines.
 * I think that the issues are not the reliability of some of the sources but rather 1. The actual information being quoted in the source 2. The relevance to the article 3. Is the information necessary or even apropriate for an encyclopedia article?


 * ALI, as far as removing well-sourced material, I haven't. There are paragraphs where a single reference is used to substantiate several defammatory "facts". I have read the sources and removed any statements that are not directly and explicitly supported by that reference. Also, I have removed statements that are irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. Moreover, using a single newspaper article from 1980, that is not easily available for confirmation, to support an extremely negative and controversial statement attacking someone's character is outside of all Wiki BLP guidelines.


 * Go and buy copies of the articles with one phone call to Grand Rapids Reference Library like I did. They are a lot more easily accessed than you would like to assert, Joshua.71.251.183.240 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also like to ask the anonymous user with the IP: 71.251.183.240 to please identify themself and indicate what their interest and authority is on the subject of this page. I know that this is not required by Wikipedia but I think in this situation it would make it easier for all of us in editing this page. Thank you. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you've brought it up, I will say the following which I wouldn't have otherwise: I've researched the psychological stability of your father, and while it is easy and safe for you, Joshua Woroniecki, to identify yourself here, I don't believe it is wise nor safe for me to do that. I base that on a statement I have here on audio tape from your father where he's in Europe and he talks about driving your family RV over the ledge with you and your siblings in it, then refering to those deaths as "martyrdom". I would be happy to document this audio on YouTube with Joshua's permission. Otherwise you have to take my explanation at face value.71.251.183.240 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as my authority is concerned: the Yates researchers O'Malley and Spencer, the credible sources of expert witnesses like Dr. Lucy Puryear and Psychology Professor Jeanne Slattery who is coming out with her book on this subject next week, ABC Good Morning America, Charles Gibson and ABC PrimeTime host Chris Cuomo to name just a few. But since I've stepped aside and surrendered editing to third parties, there is no sense to implying conflict of interest with ascertaining my identity, which is indeed what you are trying to do ever since the COI warning was placed on your talk page. Nice parlay though. Maybe you should consider stepping aside and surrendering to third parties, too, without inappropriately engaging in private discourse with them. 71.251.183.240 (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone can tell where an IP address is located, but JW, unless your intent is to hunt them down and murder them, it doesn't matter. I highly doubt their sole purpose in this world is to make your father look bad.


 * What does matter is the way you are handling the article. If the article is biased one way, and you want to change it, that's fine. But you don't make anything neutral by inserting bias the other way. And that includes removing all negative info. Okay?


 * I am going out of my way here to assume you are not just trying to make your father look better. This is becoming increasingly difficult. I am second away from calling in the admins on this. ALI nom nom 15:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion just needs to stop, that's all, I thinks it's correct to say that Joseph has said he will not edit the article and he is able to comment here and in that regard all conversation should be about content and not contributors and all attempt should be made to keep conversation polite and civil, other people are going to look at the article over the forthcoming days, so perhaps it would be better if any involved parties stepped back. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I'm sorry. I got too involved in the article to be of use to anyone. (And I never knew that Joshua had said he would stop editing.) Thanks for intervening. ALI nom nom 15:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, we need to move on from all that coi stuff, all are welcome to discuss and help look over the article to improve it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First let me say I appreciate everyone who is getting involved in this. I understand that it is quite sticky. I don't care where IP 71.251.... is, but was simply looking for motive and authority. That's fine if they choose not to reveal that. Every knows the reason for my bias and stand point because I list my full name. Regardless, I stand on rock. The Wikipedia Guidelines back up everything I am doing. I would be happy to see more administrators get involved here. The facts are the facts and they should be presented clearly and neutrally. The problem is that the entire article has an extreme negative slant. It is hard to work through all that hatred to try to get an acceptable final product. It would most certainly be best to remove all the contentious and defamatory claims and let someone, such as an administrator, rewrite and summarize the necessary facts. I think that's the only way that objectivity will materialize.


 * We need to focus on the actual content in the article. As I stated before, I will not be adding or changing content at this time. I will only be removing misquoted or unsubstantiated material. I will stand aside and let the Wiki Editors make additions or changes to the article and will only write content here. No matter how negative the article may be, it needs to show both sides. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Joshua, please do not edit the article at all. You can happily discuss whatever you like here, I suggest you do perhaps, slowly one by one bring up any major issues you have here and editors will have a look please remember we are all volunteers and to allow some time for response and reaction, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob, I am not quite sure why I should not make any more edits. As I explained, what I am doing is inside the Wiki guidelines. Anyways, that's fine, I will hold off for now. I am sorry, I just saw your comment. I made two more edits before I saw it. I do acknowledge that you are all volunteers and greatly appreciate your efforts. I imagine your job must be quite difficult at times, even impossible. I want to do what I can to make things easier, not more difficult for the editors and administrators of Wikipedia. I am sorry if at times I do not achive this. I will do my best to be more patient. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You will be seen as a very involved person and with such a conflict of interest will be seen as whitewashing and all sorts of terrible wiki crimes and I assure you it will end badly, take my advice, do not edit the article, use discussion and bring any issues you have here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Joshua Woroniecki repeatedly makes the claim that much of the information contained in the article is defamatory, which would mean that the information is untrue and harmful to Michael Woroniecki's character. Leaving aside the issue of character as it's not appropriate in this forum, if the information is true then by definition it can't be defamatory. In other words, just because information reflects badly doesn't mean it's inappropriate for inclusion.Jibbytot (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

More Sources and References
Off2riorob, I got all your comments and am listening. Thank you. I will follow your advise.


 * ATTENTION EDITORS AND ADMINISTRATORS: I have been asked to contribute to this article other sources that can be referenced. Here are some articles show the Woroniecki ministry in a more neutral light. Some are more balanced than others. I think that it is essential that they are used to balance the collection of purely negative information that has been and will be added. Obviously what is refrenced from the article will either continue the slant or help to begin to create a NPOV.

Dateline NBC: A preacher speaks out, Keith Morrison, Dateline, NBC News, March 20, 2002: 

Bowling Green News: Varied Followers share Faith with Campus, The BG News (Bowling Green), Stephanie Guigou, Sept. 25, 2008: 

Grand Rapids Press: Street Preacher, Family Undaunted by jeers, Tom Rademacher, The Grand Rapids Press, Sept. 23, 2008 

Central Michigan University: Michael Woroniecki preaches Jesus not murder, Central Michigan Life, Heather Bellife, May 22, 2002 

Dallas Morning News: Nothing I’d Change, 'Bruce Nichols, The Dallas Morning News, April 6, 2002 

OK State U: God's Warriors come to UCO, ''Aaron Wright, The Vista, University of Central OK., Aug. 28, 2007: 

Houston Chronicle: Lost in the message? Cleric says he’s not to blame for Yates demons, Lisa Teachy, The Houston Chronicle, April 6, 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaWoroniecki (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have finally obtained a copy of Are you there alone?, although it is an electronic copy and the page numbers do not match. I'm going to check out all the bits referenced to this book. Kevin (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats good Kevin, a quick search and the O'malley reference name comes up 30 times and whole sections are cited to it, which seems a bit one source type affair. Is the file email-able? Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so - it has some kind of DRM attached. Already I've seen some material that is not supported by the source - "arrested the summer of his freshman year", "Woroniecki's mother gave him a Bible", unless they are on pages other than the one cited. I'll go through the current article version, unless you think it better to go through the version before all of us arrived. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the editing process proceeding from the article as revised by the Woronieckis? I would prefer to see the old version reinstated and the edit/revisions be made from there. I don't have a copy of the previous version. Moreover, objective and uninvolved persons (which excludes Kevin, IMO) need to do the review and edit.Jibbytot (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you note my section below on the lead, I have used the old version to discuss sources. I can assure you that I have no bias here. I arrived first after picking up the OTRS ticket, which had languished for 2 or 3 weeks before I looked at it. Until then had never heard of Woroniecki, nor had any contact with him. Kevin (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Influence on andrea yates
desired edit, edit summary.. '' Removed sentence and source that erroneously implied quote from family. Removed unsourced statement. Removed inflammatory adjectives''....from this ...

In 2006, Woroniecki radically altered his strategy in dealing with media questions regarding his influence on his former disciple. When Woroniecki was first examined by the media for his influence on Yates in 2002, he described his 15 year relationship with the Yateses as "friends", characterizing himself as "virtually a family member" to support his statement that "There wasn't any weird stuff going on", even though, in 1997, during the time of their ongoing interactions with the Yateses, his family stated they didn't have anyone as "friends".[52] While engaged in recruitment efforts on the campus of Pennsylvania State University in 2006, Woroniecki told The Daily Collegian he has no followers, minimized his influence on Yates by stating he only visited her "three to five times", omitting the fact that most of his 15 year, long-distance relationship with the Yateses was conducted through phone calls and letters, and feigned knowing nothing about Andrea's case in an apparent effort to distance himself from the Yateses and avoid discussion on the subject.[53][54]

to this...

When Woroniecki was interviewed by the media for his influence on Yates in 2002, he described his 15 year relationship with the Yateses as "friends", supporting his statement that "There wasn't any weird stuff going on"."[52] While engaged in recruitment efforts on the campus of Pennsylvania State University in 2006, Woroniecki told The Daily Collegian he has no followers, minimized his influence on Yates by stating he only visited her "three to five times", claiming that most of his 15 year, long-distance relationship with the Yateses was conducted through phone calls and letters, and made an effort to distance himself from the Yateses and avoid discussion on the subject.[53][54]

comments, objections?


 * Here goes:


 * This sentence: "In 2006, Woroniecki radically altered his strategy in dealing with media questions regarding his influence on his former disciple.", is the author of the article's own summary of the following statements. Instead of letting the quotes stand alone, he prefaces them with the insinuation that Woroniecki lied at various times to his own advantage.


 * The two sources have radically contradictory approaches with dealing with the media. They both can't be true. It's an obvious deceit. Let them stand alone. I think people are smart enough to figure out for themselves.72.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. "When Woroniecki was first examined by the media..." indicates guilt and trial, implying Woroniecki was secretive and required investigation. I changed it to "interviewed" as being a less biased, more precise depiction of the circumstances.


 * Actually Newsweek Periscope uses the word examin(ing). Newsweek Periscope: Examining the Influence of a Spiritual Leader. articleI don't think Newsweek thought they were conducting a trial. But I bet Woroniecki felt like he was in one. ; ) He did protest like he was being rairoaded when he was on Good Morning America and NBC Dateline.


 * "When we go on these TV shows like Dateline or MSNBC or Good Morning America ... they've got all this set up like we're these certain kind of people," Woroniecki said. "How in the world do you respond to that? That's just so unfair. ..." Lisa Teachy, Lost in the Message, Houston Chronicle, Apr 5, 2002.


 * If he felt like he was on trial, and the word choice of the media is "examine", why pervert the obvious?72.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. "...former disciple." Again, the authors definition of Yates, not Yates or Woroniecki's definition. Writing "...his influence on Yates.", is simply stating fact.

Woroniecki was teaching Yates about Jesus, allegedly. That made Andrea his student. In religious circles, the word disciple or follower is used to define the subordinate role. That's the word O'Malley used to describe a former follower of Woroniecki on p 229 of her book. Media uses those words to describe Yates and other followers. I think the problem here is simply this. No Followers = No cult. And Woroniecki is insistent he has no followers so he is no cult.


 * Michael Woroniecki interview at Lake Conroe, Tx: My literature says the opposite. Don't follow me. Jim Jones said follow me. Any cult leader tells you to follow them. I say don't follow me, so--duhh! KTRK-NEWS Houston, Apr 4, 2002.72.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 3. "...characterizing himself as "virtually a family member"..." implies that this is a direct quote from Woroniecki when if one reads the source it is actually a reporter's summary of his own opinions after an interview with Woroniecki.


 * The quotes suggest they came straight from the article, to avoid the appearance it was the editor's wording. The article itself is refering to another article, and the way Woroniecki characterizes himself in it, the "virtually a family member is an accurate characterization:


 * Their families prayed together, laughed together, and kept in touch through letters when miles apart ... "We loved Andrea and Rusty," said Woroniecki, 48. "Our relationship was a good thing, not a bad thing. We knew them for at least 15 years and were friends with them. We shared the Word with them. We went on picnics together, played games, went boating ... The long-distance friendship continued to flourish after Rusty Yates married Andrea. Woroniecki or his wife corresponded with the Yateses, or visited whenever they were in the area ... My daughters baby-sat their kids. We interacted and laughed together. We made spaghetti together," he said. They let Sarah drive a car for the first time when she was 16. When Sarah was sick she (Andrea) brought her a fruit basket." Steve Grinczel, They Needed Jesus Former GR street preacher defends friendship with Yates, Grand Rapids Press, March 9, 200272.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 4. "...even though, in 1997..." forces implication of contradiction in Woroniecki's words and behaviour instead of letting sourced text stand alone.


 * The implication isn't forced. The contradiction in the two quotes is doing the forcing.72.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 5. "...during the time of their ongoing interactions with the Yateses..." written despite quotes from Russell Yates and Michael Woroniecki to the contrary. (See list of references above). Unsourced.


 * I refer you back to the quotation in (3)...they knew them for 15 years, Woroniecki said and stayed in touch through phone and letters while on the road, meeting from time to time while passing through.72.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 6. "...his family stated they didn't have anyone as "friends"." Implies direct quote from family. However, if you go read that page in Spencer's book you will realize that that statement is compiled from the book's author's summary of a college student's paraphrasing of conversation with Ruth Woroniecki. Neither the statement nor the conversation is supplied either in context or as a direct quote.


 * No, it implies a direct quote from the source, i.e., not a word created by the editor, Spencer p. 136, 137. "Ruth told the students that she and her siblings had no friends but each other."72.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This sentence: "While engaged in recruitment efforts on the campus of Pennsylvania State University in 2006, Woroniecki told The Daily Collegian he has no followers, minimized his influence on Yates by stating he only visited her "three to five times", omitting the fact that most of his 15 year, long-distance relationship with the Yateses was conducted through phone calls and letters, and feigned knowing nothing about Andrea's case in an apparent effort to distance himself from the Yateses and avoid discussion on the subject.":Problems:
 * 1. "...minimized his influence on Yates by stating he only..." Biased language. Can neutrally be stated without losing intent: "stated he only visited her...".


 * He didn't minimize his influence (interactions) by omitting 99% of their relationship? Hmm, I refer you to the quote in (3) again. I'm sure there must be some healthy way to say the same thing without losing intent, the intent being Woroniecki omitted a lot by saying he visited her "only 3 to 5 times".72.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. "...omitting the fact that most of his 15 year, long-distance relationship with the Yateses was conducted through phone calls and letters..." Implies intentional misconduct and secrecy when in fact this "fact" was only ommitted in that source and by the source itself, not Woroniecki. It was already common media knowledge by those dates that the bulk of the subject's correspondence was through letters.


 * The reporter quoted Woroniecki:


 * Michael Woroniecki said he met Yates' husband, Rusty, while preaching at Auburn University, years before the couple was married. He said he has no followers and met Yates herself only "three to five times."


 * It was equally common knowledge by then that they visited each other 3 to 5 times.72.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 3. "...feigned knowing nothing about Andrea's case in an apparent effort..." Both the words "feigned" and "apparent" imply deceit. In one source that is listed as reference it is only stated that Woroniecki refused to comment further. In the other it states that Woroniecki was asked something about the case, without saying what the question was, to which he replied "I don't know what you're talking about". Printing an answer without the question or context creates a bias, intentional or not.


 * Woroniecki seems to know a lot about her case on his blog. Remarkable that he said he knew nothing then blocked the reporter.72.64.46.234 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry this got long. Just wanted to make sure I was specific and clearly stated the problems I had with it. Thanks. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joshua, lets wait and see if there are any objections. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob, I realize that you guys are probably going to rewrite this entire section down the road. But, until then, it seems it could be reverted to the edits I made (the ones you list above) since there are no reasonable objections. How about it? JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Joshua and Off2riorob, my understanding is that the editing process is proceeding section by section with Kevin undertaking the responsibility to offer suggested rewrites. Like Joshua, I am new to the editing process, which frankly accounts for some of my hand-wringing with respect to the lead.  As we proceed, I'm better understanding how Wiki articles are designed and the appropriate location for matters to be discussed and located.  In fact, had I known this procedure initially I would not have been adamant at all about removing the "cultlike" description from the lead.  With that said, and especially with respect to arguably the most important part of the article, I prefer that each section be addressed in turn and that comments be made then before any further edits are made.  Thank you.Jibbytot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been deliberately working from less->more contentious, as in my experience once people start agreeing with each other and working together, the hard bits become easier. I will not be around for the weekend, so if anyone has the time you might look at the music section and leave some ideas there, or edit the sample text I posted. Kevin (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that no one wants us to go back into this. Neither do I. Please bear with me. This is important. I recently discovered a site that links this 'Jibbytot' to one of his other names, Pranalite, which I have previously identified as the user who was using IP .72.64.46.234 and others ( "See here" notice the recent comments on the bottom of the page. Pranalite, who had been ranting and ranting, responded to my comment at the exact same time as "Jibbytot" with simiular purpose and content. Read the Comments and you will clearly see what I mean. I coppied it all incase he deletes it before you see it). I just think this is important becuase no matter what I say it doesn't seem that people realize the gravity of this situation and intent of this individual. The reason he is so intent on slanting this article is because most of his internet slander is linked back to this article that he has used as if it was his personal blog for many years. JoshuaWoroniecki (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No one can stop you it would seem. : ) How many times must I tell you I'm not the IP commenter?  I have said on Wiki that I have been aware of your father for 30 years.  I have never sought to note otherwise.  Do you view it as impossible that there is more than one person who has noticed your recent attempts to rehabilitate your father's image? Nonetheless, I'm not intent on "slanting" the article as my comments clearly illustrate.  I seek merely to ensure objectivity and my awareness of various facts concerning your father is helpful in that regard. You, on the other hand, are nearly apoplectic it would seem.  I will continue to offer suggestions despite your attempts to suppress my viewpoints.  Rest assured that I have no ought against you or your father.  I believe that the truth is the most important thing -- that is all.Jibbytot (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)    To ensure clarity, let me state once and for all that in my entire life I have never sought to edit any Wiki article.  This is the first time I've ever been involved in doing anything other than reading one.  I created an account on Wiki in late January as a mere coincidence to your later efforts to revise your father's article.  FWIW, I agree with some of your complaints about the original article.  It was too negative in certain ways and presented some extraneous information that really had no business in the article.  In any event, just settle down and engage in the process and let's see how it all pans out.Jibbytot (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, in my opinion your comments there preclude further participation here on your part. This "You're a piece of work, dude. Be aware that I'm on your trail in the sense that teh internets will soon be awash in documented proof that many of the assertions you make in your PR page are lies" reads like you are on a crusade. If you have any issues with this, I suggest you take them up on my talk page. Kevin (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And your protestation notwithstanding, as I articulated in more depth on your talk page, I'll be continuing to offer comments and suggestions in the effort to ensure objectivity, fairness, and completeness. If you have issues with this, please let me know on my talk page or with an admin or in any alternative manner that you deem appropriate within the context of Wikipedia.  If not, then I would suggest that we move on.Jibbytot (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've said my piece, and I'll leave it there. Kevin (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)