Talk:Rob Bell/Archive 1

Disambiguation
Please note that this page will, eventually, have to become a disambiguation page, since there is also a pro baseball pitcher with the same name, and possibly others as well. Blank Verse 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Discuss
Added the image at the top asking for edits to be discussed here. I just want to keep everyone on the same page. Thanks. --Derek Spalla 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

151.199.175.100 - if you're going to disagree with my warning box at the top of the article, you should at least log in and it discuss it here. This is exactly the reason why I posted the warning in the first place.--Derek Spalla 10:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversies
Any comments or links to "Apprising Ministries" should probably be heavily scrutinized and considered for removal. Apprising Ministries is a poorly done blog by a single individual, hardly a fair source for citation of controversy or criticism. --Mrupert@gmail.com (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be included that Bell demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of string theory. His use of it in in "Everything is Spiritual" completely misrepresents the theory, it's basis and it's conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.116.37 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources?--Lyonscc (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Added another perspective on the Apprising Ministries links.

--Casaubonian 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made the criticisms more neutral - used words such as 'claimed. I also removed the Brian Maclaren paragraph - this seemed like a irrelavance as it was more about Brian Maclaren than Rob Bell, the only reference being that he preaced at Rob Bell's church.

I have made the language more neutral, added some citations (including one for and one against the 'Eastern' comment) and shortened the Apprising Ministries link to just a sentence. The existing paragraph wasn't neutral in language, attacking the subject rather than informing. Casaubonian 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
This section needs some citations for those items listed, otherwise it's just fantasy instead of true facts.--Derek Spalla 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotations
I am confused - why are there supposed quotes from Rob Bell from a book not written by him that is a satirical take on the religious right? Can these quotes be authenticated at all or are they made up? When and where did Rob say those things? --Virgil Vaduva 02:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They are legitimate quotes from an interview the author conducted with Rob Bell

Inaccurate quotes
To the anon editor - if you would please authenticate the quotes you keep posting, perhaps that would help with the constructive creation of this article. Referencing obscure websites does not qualify as quotation material in my book, so could you perhaps provide more evidence of where and when these quotes appeared?

--Virgil Vaduva 20:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph about "Velvet Elvis"
I would like to know why my suggested revision has been changed. I have here added the extra phrase "... to live with great passion and conviction" to the quote from the book. (Can anyone verify that this is an actual quote, by the way?) The reason I suggested this edit is because the phrase "Amazing story" is not neutral.

Thank you. Mathteacher1729 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph could probably be cleaned up grammatically, as well as made more neutral. (Speficially, remove the "...tells an amazing story" part and replace with "tells the story of.."

Rob Bell, in his recent book, "Velvet Elvis", tells an amazing story of how he envisions the walk a Christian takes in life. "The challenge he says, is to live with great passion and conviction, remaining open and flexible, aware that this life is not the last painting.

Possible re-write suggestion: In Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, Rob Bell explains his vision of the Christian Life. "The challenge," he says "is to live with great passion and conviction, remaining open and flexible, aware that this life is not the last painting." Mathteacher1729 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms links
I don't agree with everything on the Apprising Ministries website but at least it provides another perspective on what many evangelical Christians consider the heterodox postmodern beliefs of Rob Bell. Many quotes from this site were removed in the past which is reasonable as they carry a biased opinion. I think having a link to the site without including material directly in the bio is reasonable.

70.188.25.24 01:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not reasonable - this article is an article about Rob Bell, not a repository of links and sites devoted to slandering him and those associated with him. What quotes have been removed as biased opinions? --Virgil Vaduva 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

well, looking at the history, you have systematically expunged anything remotely critical of him. I think one link to a different viewpoint than yours and appropriately labeled in the "Criticism" section is ok. 70.188.25.24 06:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC) I reread the article and agree with you that you haven't expunged all critical material. I disagree that the apprising ministry website is slanderous but I'll leave the link off. 70.188.25.24 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I included references for every thing that I added. There is a link to Christianity Today that discusses Rob Bell and the Mars Hills Church which he leads as part of the emerging church movement. 70.188.25.24 12:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1. Bell has NEVER identified himself as being part of the emergent movement (there was no citation provided for this as I've asked and the Christianity Today link doesn't mention anything about this) 2. A link to a blog hardly is a reliable source for Bell encouraging church members to practice eastern religions.
 * Actually I have repeatedly asked that you register for a Wikipedia account and use the discussion page to further the development of the article, you have refused to do so. Only after I repeatedly undid your edits you have chosen the course of discussion. I have not systematically expunged ANYTHING critical of Rob Bell.  I have removed links which are obviously SPAM or efforts to slander or advertise slanderous websites regarding the article.  Before you continue to edit, I highly recommend that (1) you create an account and participate as a regular user - anonymous edits are hardly credible here and (2) read What Wikipedia is not which will help you better understand that Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote your ideology or a battleground for you to fight ideological wars.  This purpose of an article is to disseminate information on a specific topic or person.  Your edits are hardly improving the article; I will continue to "expunge" your edits as long as you do not take a constructive approach to the development of the article. --Virgil Vaduva 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better edit - thanks for cooperating. I think the critical quotes are very appropriate and well placed, however Bell never publicly claim to be associated with the emergent church movement so I removed part of the introductory paragraph.  If you can find a quote that places him in that movement we can definitely reach an agreement to change the article accordingly.  I am glad to see we are coming to some a place where we can reach some constructive agreement. --Virgil Vaduva 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I cannot agree with that paragraph as it was worded. There are two major problems with it:

I was under the impression that we can come to an agreement of non-biased edits. This is not a place to criticize Rob Bell or to unveil controversial stuff about him. Please create a regular Wikipedia account so you can make those changes as a user. --Virgil Vaduva 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is controversial. Your removing the edit constitutes a "biased" edit. We all have our biases and that's why we can have multiple points of view included in the article. I haven't deleted anything that you have written. It is useful to provide all points of view. I don't want to create an account. If I did, I would have done it already. 70.188.25.24 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Associating someone with "emergent" when the person never claimed such an association is quite controversial, and in your eyes apparently is an attempt to discredit Bell. Also, as I already specified, links to someone's blog is hardly considered "credible information" so I cannot understand how or why you continue with those edits and links. --Virgil Vaduva 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the quote from the 'Emergent Mystique' article in November 2004 Christianity today from Rob Bell where he talks about his presentation of Christianity, “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life.” Sounds to me like he is encouraging people to practice Christianity as an eastern religion. His church is also clearly identified as part of the emergent movement in that article. Unless you can produce a quote from Rob Bell that clearly states his church is not part of the emergent church than I would say that you have removed the edit without justification. 70.188.25.24 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And you are using an out of context quote to portray him as a Buddha-seeking new-ager when he is speaking in the context of the Judaic (eastern) roots of Christianity, as opposed to the Greek (western) root of our faith. Thanks for using that quote to further prove your bias.  So far I have agreed to the REASONABLE changes you suggested which are very well thought out and presented, but the paragraph you are insisting on inserting in the article will not stand. --Virgil Vaduva 01:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked your edit, thanks for not entirely removing what I had contributed. I got rid of the blog links and replaced it with link to a published article. I think one sentence acknowledging that many Christians finds his views unbiblical in an article that is generally favorable is not biased but provides some balance. I must admit that I have no idea what you are talking about saying that Judaism is an eastern Religion?? 70.188.25.24 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as Yoga and "eastern religions" are mentioned, I cannot agree to the edit..I am sorry. Before either one of us agrees to further changes, it would be a good idea to discuss them here, otherwise we end in another stalling situation. --Virgil Vaduva 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to delete the edits and in support of your biased view without allowing other viewpoints to be represented, than I suppose there is no value in continuing the discussion. 70.188.25.24 03:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I made quite an effort and compromise quite a bit regarding your original submissions but you continue to insert inflammatory lingo like "eastern" and "yoga" into the article. I asked that we discuss further changes here but you are not willing to do so, so I am at a loss as to what we can do about it. --Virgil Vaduva 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try this one more time in an effort to end a protracted edit war. You have not compromised at all. I took out the link that you objected to. I agreed with your edit that says that Bell denies being part of the emergent church (although in the interview with him on your website it seems he just doesn't like any 'labels' at all and the interviewer seemed to think he was emergent). I added a direct quote from Bell regarding his promoting the eastern religious practices as helpful a model for Christian practice. He has used Yoga in his church and many Christian leaders have objected to his teachings in Velvet Elvis. I asked Yuser31415 about this and he said he was OK with the edits as long as they were cited appropriately. I don't agree with your assessment that the words "yoga" and "eastern" are inflammatory. 70.188.25.24 12:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you need to provide references, and you do not have any references for "eastern" and "yoga" - they are just your opinions...I have no idea if it's made up or what. The link to Christianity Today says nothing about him describing Christianity as an eastern religion.  Please eliminate the two comments.  Regarding Yuser31415 - he should know that this kind of criticism is borderline acceptable for this kind of an article, especially for a living person.  If it was up to me, there would be no "Criticism" section in any article.  Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia where someone like you with a grudge against Bell gets to write extended sections about what you dislike about the guy.  This conversation is absolutely ridiculous to even have!--Virgil Vaduva 16:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Made several edits to the 'criticisms' section to pare it down to meet Wikipedia standards:
 * The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Source: WP:BLP

It appears that the critics of Bell have decided to make this their propaganda space, linking to disreputable blogs (like apprising.org), and quoting Bell's books out of context to make them say things they just don't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyonscc (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears most of the inflammatory information was added under the guise of "Updated Formatting" on November 15.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add any more 'apprising.org' links to this article. This website is a personal blog run by a "pastor" of a church of 5 people with a personal grudge against Bell in which he believes that he was called out by God to bring down Bell. Quoting apprising for criticism of Bell is like quoting Fred Phelps for criticism of the US Goverment, certainly it is criticism, but it is a lunatic fringe.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

72.86.14.75 is reverting material that was spuriously added under the guise of "updated formatting", including misquotes/partial quotes/cotextomy from Velvet Elvis. While the criticisms on the Virgin Mary section have been left intact, the sections I have removed are improperly used and misrepresented from the work in question. Additionally, I removed the Triva re: Nelson Mandela, as it is not sourced. I have also removed some blog reviews of Velvet Elvis for the same reason as other blog link removal.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Links
Why are there more links under criticism than valid links and references? This is outright spam and goes against Wikipedia rules. I will remove them unless the author has justification, AND he/she can say why all those links cannot be consolidated under one link. --Virgil Vaduva 00:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Gump
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Critics and Biased Material
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Gump is back at it
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Critics and links
Could we please abstain from posting, quoting and linking to pseudo-critics of Rob Bell that are unknown or have no credibility to raise a reasonable critique? I've asked this before but apparently nobody is listening. This biographical article is not a place where anyone who feels like writing a blog entry that is critical should be able to come and spam the article with links; nor should supporters be able to do the opposite. Personally I think that is unreasonable and uncalled for. Also, I have asked countless times to discuss changes here before they are made; I am talking to the wind. --Virgil Vaduva 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, external links need to be discussed here before adding. -Charleca 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section
Please do not add a trivia section back into the article. All the info under the Trivia has been moved and incorporated into the body of the article, and trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. --Virgil Vaduva 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrangement
I've rearranged the paragraphs so that the Contents Box give a bit more information to the reader. I have no opinion about this preacher but simply want to regularize the content. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit War - December 8-10 re: Criticism
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Trivia and Criticism
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Criticism Suggestions
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Third Opinion
This really doesn't need a third opinion. The suggested version by Lyonscc clearly cleans up the original research and lack of a neutral point of view. If the reverts continue I suggest taking the issue to the admin notice board. Although, the proposed change still has some weasel words ("some evangelicals criticized some comments made in the book"), but it's certainly better than the alternative.  Justin  chat 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding Nooma To Bibliography
I suggest that Bell's Nooma videos be added to the Bibliography:


 * Rain 001 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265126
 * Flame 002 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265142
 * Trees 003 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265169
 * Sunday 004 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265185
 * Noise 005 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265215
 * Kickball 006 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265231
 * Luggage 007 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265258
 * Dust 008 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265274
 * Bullhorn 009 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265290
 * Lump 010 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265339
 * Rythm 011 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310269148
 * Matthew 012 (Zondervan, 2006) ISBN 0310269156
 * Rich 013 (Zondervan, 2006) ISBN 0310269164
 * Breathe 014 (Zondervan, 2006) ISBN 0310269326
 * You 015 (Zondervan, 2007) ISBN 0310269342
 * Store 016 (Zondervan, 2007) ISBN 0310269369
 * Today 017 (Zondervan, 2007) ISBN 0310269385
 * Name 018 (Zondervan, 2007) ISBN 0310269407
 * open 019 (Zondervan, 2008) ISBN 0310269431 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyonscc (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just my suggestion, this list is actually way too long for the article itself and may not be relevant to the biography of a living person. You would be better off creating a separate NOOMA article which discusses NOOMA in detail and includes all the episodes and information about it.


 * As an update, this list is already under NOOMA - I wasn't even aware that there is a NOOMA article. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Editing this page
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Undoing of AlexFusco Revert
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Third Opinion Requested
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

Arbitration denied
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

The Unsuitability of Apprising.org as a source
One thing that needs to be settled once and for all in this particular discussion is the complete unsuitability of apprising.org links and/or information as source material.

1) It is a blog. This, in and of itself, is reason enough for it to not be a source. Per BLP "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (emphasis mine)"

2) Apprising is poorly sourced Apprising.org is a blog for Apprising "Ministries" (sic), a one-man show run by Ken Silva, the "pastor" of a church of 5 people in rural New Hampshire. It has been documented that more than two thirds of his "research" is simply self-referential links to his own sites, and that the remaining third of his "research" is to sites he contributes to or other blogs.

3) Material from the apprising site in unhinged. He has claimed that God raised him up to bring down Rob Bell, in particular, and if you pick out articles at random from his site, like this one it becomes completely apparent that this site is not of the quality required for a V verifiable source.

Per Verifiability "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;" --Lyonscc (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment recommending a permanent block on Gump editing this article
This redirect is depreciated. Instead, use.

the gods aren't angry
Once the article is unblocked, we should consider adding a small sub-section on the the gods aren't angry tour and explain what it's all about. In fact we should add sub-headers under Projects for all these entries so the article is better organized. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. The "Other Projects" section seems a bit choppy...--Lyonscc (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine Article
After unblocking, I think it would be worth mentioning/linking to the Time Magazine profile of Rob this month. In case you haven't seen it, it's here. RonCG (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to unprotect?
3 months seems like a long while. Or am I missing something?

CaptinJohn (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here We Go Again?
Before trying to reintroduce material which violates WP:V (like Freswick's self-published material and Driscoll's criticisms), or violates WP:POV and WP:COAT (the same material, plus the reversion of the criticisms section, previously agreed to above) - please discuss here. If you don't like the guy, go write a blog - this isn't your blog space.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This doesn't have anything to do with not liking the guy, it's just that Driscoll's criticizing of Rob Bell was a big deal and Mark is a well-recognized figure in Christian circles. The rest of the criticism section says "some conservative..." and this provides a specific name. If this isn't suitable, then get rid of the criticism sections in Rob's profile (and in profiles of other Christian leaders). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.37.46 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A lecture/sermon by one pastor against another does not meet the level of quality required by Encyclopedic sources, particularly a biography of a living person WP:BLP - it is no different than a blog entry WP:V. Wikipedia is not a place to grind axes, it is an encyclopedia.  This article is supposed to be about an individual, not why people agree/disagree with that individual.  Additionally, Driscoll's comments would also be a WP:COAT coatrack issue, as they are basically an example of fisking footnotes (obscure references, per WP:V) and can easily be disputed.  A biography page is not the place to carry on original researchWP:NOR, so it doesn't belong there.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI - the primary purpose of the revert was not the Driscoll information (which was in violation, as above), but primarily the edits by 71.254.83.242 which were deceptively titled "Formatting updated", but were, in reality, a revert to the HIGHLY non-WP:NPOV version that was the cause of the revert war in December.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Driscoll Criticism of Bell
The Driscoll Criticism of Bell, mentioned above, has no place in the article per wp:BLP:

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. (emphasis mine)

1) Driscoll's criticism has nothing to do with Bell's notability

2) It is clearly guilt by association, as it is related to an author in a footnote in one of his many written/filmed works - classic guilt-by-association reasoning.

3) It is not published by a reliable source, but is rather a lecture/sermon by Driscoll, which is no more reliable than a blog - neither of which meet the reliable source test--Lyonscc (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is unreal
Wasn't this article just unprotected a few days ago? Why are admins allowing these IPs to continue vandalizing it without any permanent or long-term banning? --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Universities where Sex God tour took place
Can you name the following universities? I sure can't .... which is why I temporarily deleted that portion of the following sentence:

>>In February and March 2007 Bell hosted a SEX GOD tour on six university campuses (University of Michigan, UK, UW, CAL, UCLA and Northern) to promote his book.

70.112.19.242 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Name them? As in, what their full names are? Well, UW is probably University of Washington and CAL is a nickname for UC Berkeley. I'm not sure about the other two non-linked colleges; UK and Northern. According to UK (disambiguation), UK could mean University of Kent or University of Kentucky. Killiondude (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Heretic
The following comment was originally left at Talk:Rob bell.

The Rob Bell article does not address the 'heretic' label which has been placed on Bell by some members of the mainstream and religious presses. Not to put too simplistic a slant on it, but the ratio of bad press to good that exsists in the WWW and religous communities does not seem to be adiquitly represented here. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMKRich (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 February 2009


 * The "Heretic" label is primarily bandied about in Reformed/discernmentalist/Calvinist blogs, not mainstream press, and blogs are not WP:V sources. The primary criticisms have been leveled at the Virgin Mary passage in Velvet Elvis, which is covered in the article, and at a perceived slight to Sola Scriptura in VE, which is also covered.  Most every public Christian figure gets the 'heretic' label slapped on them by one camp or another, and Wikipedia has generally avoided this via its WP:BLP policy and its insistence on not allowing self-published sources to be cited.--Lyonscc (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Better place for this?

 * In his writings, Bell affirms things as truth regardless of the source, saying "I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any worldview. If it's true, it belongs to God." However, he acknowledges Scripture as the authoritative source of truth by which to compare all other truths in the Mars Hill Bible Church statement of narrative theology.


 * Can this statement go somewhere else? It's it the controversy section and I can't see how this is a controversy. Basileias (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason it is a 'controversy' is that there are a small (but highly vocal) subset of Christians (primarily Reformed and Calvinist) who view the statement "I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any worldview. If it's true, it belongs to God" as saying that there may be some truth found outside of Scripture and/or traditional Christianity - which an ultra rigid interpretation of sola Scriptura (ironically, an extrabiblical concept, in and of itself) would deny. I was involved w/ the negotiations on the current wording, which were somewhat of a royal pain to deal with, as I didn't think it belonged in the first place.  It's been in the controversy (which used to be 'criticism') section since then, since it IS controversial to fundamentalist Christianity, and its current form is much better than where it was initially headed.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does "highly vocal" qualify as scholarship and authority? I looked at some of the past history and I see where your coming from. I noticed someone reverted my grammar edits; crazy. Either way, should I put it back to make sure the peace is kept? Basileias (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I confess... I was the one whose edits ended up in your grammar edits disappearing. My apologies. (I'm not really crazy...) Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Understand and no hard feelings. Thank you for clearing that up! Basileias (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the quotation/controversy question: I would tend to agree with Lyonscc that it seems to be at odds with perhaps most of Protestantism, probably including much of mainstream Anglicanism and Lutheranism. But much would hinge on interpretation by various parties (including Bell's own rather ambiguous wording). Reformed/Calvinist/Fundamentalist readings would probably react strongly; if that includes, say Southern Baptist Convention plus similar groupings, that would be a considerably-sized (not just small) subset of Western Christendom. So my gut reaction is that Bell's statement does classify as controversial.  Of course, what we really need are decent authoritative sources about its controversial (or otherwise) nature. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the criticism of these comments come from blogs and other self-published media (which are not WP:V sources), so I don't know how authoritative a source we will be able to find (which was part of my reason for thinking it should be out, but then working towards a compromise with some vocal editors). I've not heard/read much criticism of the comments from Baptist quarters (or at least SBC) apart from (prolific blogger) Ken Silva, who's been disowned by the SBC, so he probably doesn't count, either.  I would probably add it back, but I don't feel strongly about it, apart from avoiding future fights over the exact same thing (since it was compromise language).--Lyonscc (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I added it back. I don't want to undo what you people probably worked hard at and start something again. Funny you mentioned this guy "Ken". I was reading a blog a couple of days ago and he was arguing with everyone in the comments section. He seems unbalanced to put it nicely. I'll stay out of this article until I know more. Basileias (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Problems: Citations, Weasle Words, Style of Writing, Notability
For all the techno-savvy Rob Bell fans out there, I was surprised to see the state of abject disrepair of this article. There are currently multiple major problems in each section.

1) The introduction contains broken or missing citations.

2) The section "Education and calling" contains almost no citations and is serious need of major revision or complete deletion. The section does not remotely meet Wikipedia's standards of quality. At a minimum, the section needs a great deal of copy-editing. Finally, this section contains numerous facts which likely do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. (As an example: the first citation for this section—which is the first citation for the entire article—is a link to a band's blog. This is hardly a Wikipedia-quality citation. The second citation, which is the only other citation to this section, is a broken link.)

3) The section "Mars Hill Bible Church" is not written from a neutral point of view. In addition, this section includes various personal facts about Rob Bell which do not seem relevant to this section.

4) The section "Other projects" contains very little citations and reads more like a disjointed list of random facts comprised by a fan.

5) The section "Controversy" contains either a) too few citations, or b) improper citations.

In total, there are only 18 citations to this article. 1 citation is to a band's blog. 3 citations are broken. 1 is to the Bible, and is in fact not a citation to anything. 1 citation is to Rob Bell's personal website, without any further citation. 1 citation is to a mere list of dates and locations for a speaking tour from several years ago. 2 citations are to cites where you can purchase a DVD or mp3s of previous speaking tours. 1 cite is to a link for a video interview with a random, non-news source. 1 citation is to a link to a cite where you can purchase a multimedia packet for teaching purposes. And, finally, 4 citations are to a hand full of pages from Rob Bell's book, Velvet Elvis.

If you're keeping count, that's 15 of the 18 citations are improper and useless. I don't necessarily think this entire article needs to be deleted, but it certainly is in need of a major overhaul. 66.56.63.233 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you help improve it, please? Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're asking me personally to improve it, what this article needs is a hardcore Rob Bell fan who actually knows citations to the dozens and dozens of facts listed throughout. I'm not your guy. I'm only marginally familiar with Bell. I'm not saying it can't be fixed or that it's wrong; but the lack of citations does need to be addressed.72.17.246.234 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)