This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Virginia B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Baptist / Arminianism / Evangelical B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Baptist work group. This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as High-importance). LGBT studies B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Conservatism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Politics: American B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force.

Template:Vital article

Archives

2002–2007 May 2007 May 2007 – present

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting that paragraphs are allowed to remain in the article with no substantiation. See the second paragraph under item #6 Social and Political Views. No attributable link is attached but the comment is allowed to stand. So much for fairness.

I removed this from the section: He often spoke out in favor of the racist position in those days. For example, in 1958, he said:

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

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

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

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

I don't see it in the article, but, didn't his newspaper as much as say, since Lilith was Adam's first wife (& a demon?), the Lilith Fair was a tool of Satan? Damion 17:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was generally considered by much of Protestant Christianity as apocryphal, meaning that they feel there is little truth behind this (and none concerning this tale). We got his newspaper for a time during the late 1990s, but I don't know if that was before or after 1999 (the time we received it)? WAVY 10 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image Image:Falwellhustler.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[After saying that abortion is evil] Ironically, he condemned Fred Phelps' controversial Westboro Baptist Church, on the basis of believing that abortion clinic bombings were harmful to the furthering of the pro-life movement.

Is a better word "however"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.101.38 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the line about John McCain denouncing Falwell. This is inappropriate given the current election and the complexities of the implication. The quote and its position in the very begining of the article lead the reader to believe McCain is a general denouncer of Falwell, when the reality is more complicated. The quote itself is correct, but is from the 2000 primary, and since that time McCain's positions and relationships with Falwell, Robertson and other Christian leaders have changed considerably. Given the current election and all the sensativities and extra precautions to fairness and accuracy that go along with that, I think it's only right to remove this line and add information about McCain's denouncement in a section specifically addressing their relationship which can then bring a more inclusive view of the facts to bare on the issue. Anyone want to tackle the job? Thelastemperor (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to have been a slight degree of controversy over Falwell's relations with Rome. Falwell was been called an ecumenist by some of his fellow Baptist brethren. He has been a supporter of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I notice this because Falwell has publicly criticized just about everyone except Catholics. [1] ADM (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that Falwell was a twin. Is he and his brother identical twins? What happen to the twin brother?--74.229.102.208 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived in Lynchburg, Virginia and was both a member of Thomas Road Baptist Church and an employee of Jerry Falwell's first cousins, I am pretty sure his twin brother's name is Gene. I don't recall what he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.199.8 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Vanity Fair no. 736 in early 2022, page 106, the twin boys Jerry Sr. and Gene were born in 1933, two years after the death from appendicitis of the parents' 11-year-old child. Johannes der Taucher (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I won't deny that Falwell's probably best known these days for his controversial statements, I think this article could stand to be reworked a little bit, as it's a bit too overtly critical to be considered neutral. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the guy myself, but as it stands this reads more like a diatribe or an essay on Falwell's outlandish statements than an encyclopedic article. 173.30.28.130 (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're wrong but it's possible that it's because the man had no redeeming qualities and nothing positive can be said about him. Entheta (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there we have POV. You are suggesting he had no redeeming qualities from your point of view. Margaret Sanger had none from mine, however I do not find the urge to defend a biased article attacking her. Free speech and neutrality only exist so long as we are willing to grant the former and maintain the latter in cases that make us uncomfortable.98.114.206.141 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person who posted this originally, but Entheta's comment goes to show the article is written wholly from that angle. Whether or not you agree with the man, many, many people did. And while I personally believe the man had many flaws in the way he lived and behaved, he was involved in numerous charities, including finical aid for unwed mothers and shelter for alcoholics. Although I'm sure it came with a strong dose of Jerry Falwell's take on Jesus, young mothers and their kids need to eat, and people who have hit rock bottom still need a place to sleep. The article reads critically, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.251.177 (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that this article is wholly off. Why for instance, is so much space given to Hitchens's criticisms (hilarious though they may be)? Throwawaygull (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article does not even come close to approaching neutrality. Having never heard of Jerry Falwell until I read this article (linked from Education in Virginia to Liberty University to Falwell). I have to say, I would expect much more neutrality from an article on Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh. And yes, the quotes from Hitchens were excessively extensive and didn't add anything in terms of quality or vital information to the article. This needs serious reworking in order to meet Wikipedia's standards on quality and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.213.166 (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the above comments. This article seems to tilt toward whatever negative incident can be found. A man who started a church - which is still operating - at age twenty two, and founded a university which is a serious institution forty years later, must be worthy of more than this article currently shows. It should be edited for balance.Purplethree (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "gay" or "LGBT" should almost always be preferred over "homosexual". Using "homosexual" sounds more clinical, and it is a tactic of the religious right to make gay seem like some kind of illness (which it is thoroughly proven to be false). Lies, lies, lies.. and all for Jebus! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.252.110.75 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersensitive nonsense. Homosexual is a more historic term to be sure, but is not defined by the SPLC, ADL, or any other noteworthy organization as offensive. A, bi, hetro, homo, pan, and poly sexual are words commonly used to sound "clinical" because they are typically thought to be more formal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.251.177 (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. You are simply advocating the use of terms that reflect your own bias, and pretending they are neutral. Homosexual is the standard English word, gay and LGBT are recent creations invented by people with agendas. Choalbaton (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you brother but that's utterly ignorant and foolish of you. the word 'gay' up until the 80s generally meant careless, carefree, happy, you could have a gay ol' time back in them times. I suppose homosexuals have adopted that word to self-consciously attempt to reassure themselves, I won't make any broad statements on this website, knowing it's tilt, but 'homosexual' is the neutral term, sodomite, transgressor or some other word would be non-'neutral' words, there're profanities too but that's of the devil, and only for them that truly are without love for the sinners. - Elijah. J. Canaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So did he or did he not write it? The section right now acts attributes authorship to "media reports said that Falwell wrote it" basically, but then at the end, it says "Falwell said" directly. Also, in this article, Larry Flynt acts like, very definitely, that Falwell wrote it, no question. Can someone clarify and rewrite the section? Also, I'd like to add that Flynt yelled at Falwell to "leave the Teletubbies alone," if that's encyclopedic. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article, http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9712/24/teletubbies/, predates the National Liberty Journal article by over a year and also predates the Salon article cited by this Wikipedia article. Although Falwell cited a Washington Post article in the National Liberty Journal article, I haven't been able to find it, yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.203.157 (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit the article, because I've got more sense than to get involved with an article that is highly likely to attract fanatics, but I must say that at present it completely misses the point of Falwell's attitude to Jews. Like many Christian fundamentalists, he was pro-Zionist but anti-Jew. He supported Israel because he believed that Jewish control of Jerusalem is a pre-requisite for the Second Coming of Christ, but he believed (and hoped) that when the events supposedly forecast by the Book of Revelation occurred, vast numbers of Jews would be killed and all the others would convert to Christianity. Choalbaton (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Articles? Oh wait, probably just unsubstantiated (and false) opinion.98.114.206.141 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choalbaton is absolutely right about Falwell's support of Israel but perhaps stretches things a bit in claiming Falwell hoped vast numbers of Jews would be killed in the end times. The fundamentalist Christian view is that Jewish control of Jerusalem IS a pre-requisite for the Second Coming of Christ. Fundamentalist Christians used to be more antisemitic than they are now, just as they were formerly (and Falwell in particular) openly segregationist. These views have become socially unacceptable today. Falwell's opinion on the eventual fate of the Jews was based on a literal reading of the Book of Revelation, but to say he hoped for it, other than in the sense that he hoped for fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, casts an anti-semitic insinuation that I don't think there is much recent evidence for. Many of his other views were objectionable enough without adding Jew-hating to the mix.Gillartsny (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why putting gutter humor ( even if it was from CSpan) in an encyclopedia article is fitting. Is that the kind of source material that we want for young students doing research? Besides the fact that Wikipedia contains articles that make no judgment against the most destructive people of our society, printing filth from someone who hates Falwell, under the guise of information necessary to do research, is degrading the material. It achieves nothing except giving vengeance a venue. I would think that Wikipedia would be striving to lift itself up to a higher level of credibility, not resorting to ad hominem sewer humor to please the low life. Let's have some standards here; save the filth for the locker room. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.87.219 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I guess profaning the name of the dead is the new morality, the new righteousness. But then again just the presence of that I guess declares that Brother Jerry was the better man, by the Grace of God. -Elijah J. Canaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that Falwell was a Southern Baptist. True, he was a Baptist from the Southern U.S., but an unqualified implication that he was a member of the Southern Baptist Convention is problematic in view of his long separation and independence from SBC. Someone, please clarify. Rammer (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later on (around 2000); Thomas Road Baptist Church entered a dual affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention via their affiliation with the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on Jerry Falwell in Conservapedia, Jerry Falwell gained a driving license aged thirteen, three years before he was eligible to do so. Is this interesting and noteworthy enough to go in this article? Vorbee (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it interesting and noteworthy enough that Conservapedia is making that claim? No. But is it something covered substantially in reliable sources? Does Conservapedia offer a source for the claim?? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2019/07/18/dr-a-pierre-guillermin-remembered-as-founding-leader-and-cherished-friend/ On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Dr. A. Pierre Guillermin passed away at the age of 82. Dr. Guillermin served as President of Liberty University from 1971 to 1996 and as President Emeritus since his retirement in 1996

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2017/02/06/former-lu-president-encourages-students-to-be-missional-in-all-things/ John Borek, president emeritus of Liberty who served from 1997-2003

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2020/08/25/liberty-university-board-accepts-jerry-falwell-jr-s-resignation-as-president/ Falwell was the fourth president of Liberty University, assuming the role after his father, Liberty founder Dr. Jerry Falwell, Sr., passed away in 2007 antony.trupe (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is part of his legacy really receiving prank calls? Are Jr's sexcapades 13 years post-mortem relevant? This article is the kind of trash you'd hear from your 14 year old after he discovers atheism, not something worthy of an encyclopedia that aims to collect and categorize knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.5.218 (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks any clear statement of Falwell's theology. Surely this is worth a section of it's own, stating his personal theological viewpoints. Darkman101 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]