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.

Media Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

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]

Is this page semi-protected or totaly protected?

It is clear from the fact that editing has been disabled that Wikipedia (or the moderators or whoever runs this place) is pro-Falwell. Otherwise, comments would not have been turned off. There is no way to add some of Falwell's most famous controversial comments, including:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/

Too bad Wikipedia and it's self-proclaimed moderators try to censor history.

Those commments are at the very top of the controversial section. I think you're wrong in your accusations. Lizard1959 00:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They removed the audio I had of the event. Coolgamer 19:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're definitely pro-Falwell. Especially me. -- Y not? 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his death section someone has written that in the hospital's press release it stated 'the world is better off with him dead'. This is obviously patently false. I am unable to correct this, but perhaps someone else will.

Yes, how is it that the page is protected, but someone could put a mean-spirited remark like that in less than four hours after the man died? And putting it where it is--where the citation seems to apply to the remark--is tantamount to a lie, since it could lead people to think that the press release made the remark. It all must have been done by someone who is allowed to edit protected articles. 140.147.160.78 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

I reverted that one. Since the page is semi-protected, registered users can still edit it. As for how someone could do it, Falwell was a controversial person whose opinions displeased a large number of people. To put it bluntly, he was loathed by the people he loathed. I personally have no great love for his opinions, but I'm not willing to see vandalism ruin an article about him. It does need to be left only semi-protected, though, so that new information about the circumstances of his death can be added as it becomes available. I'll try to keep an eye on it (as I've noticed a couple others doing as well). The Dark 19:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was reverted, even as I was writing this. I think you slighly misunderstood my question about how it could be done, but you answered it anyway with the comment about semi-protected; I'm not really conversant on how these things work here. I saw a protected page with a remark like that, and figured that if the page is protected it must be an inside vandalism job. 140.147.160.78 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

what the heck i was the first one to edit the page to reflect the death posted by AP and i was reprimanded saying do not post any death until confirmed by a major news agency... isnt MSNBC AND AP a major news agency????

Well he is definitely dead, according to several major news organizations, so I say as long as you can source it, at that shouldn't be too hard, go ahead and put info on his death back in.70.59.40.20 19:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to change anything at the moment, as i'm not logged in, and maybe there's something i just don't understand here. the article mentions quite clearly that Falwell "converted" to Christianity, and that he had a desire to "convert" his hometown of Lynchburg. this phrasing seems unclear or disingenuous to me. while the article notes that Falwell's father was not particularly religious, and his grandfather was an atheist, it does not specifically mention that he was raised completely outside of christianity -- is this the case? because the use of the word "convert" implies that he was an atheist or a member of a nonchristian religion before becoming an active participant in the baptist church. when a lapsed or non-practicing nominal christian becomes more active or finds a new denominational affiliation, that's not really described in most christian circles as a "conversion".

in addition, the assertion that Falwell wanted to "convert" his hometown is even more absurd. is Lynchburg, VA, an orthodox Jewish enclave or something? i find it hard to believe that a small town in the rural "bible belt" south would have had not a single church in it, and not a single self-identified Christian inhabitant. what is meant by "convert" in this sense is clearly "to spread the Baptist denomination" or, "to start a church", or maybe even "to win followers".

the use of "convert" in this sense, to mean getting lapsed Christians to be more active at church, or to win followers of one Christian denomination over to a different denomination is at the very least POV -- it's a terminology that right-wing fundementalist and evangelical Christians use to imply that Christians who do not affiliate with evangelicalism are not true Christians. which is patently false under any neutral understanding of the term "Christian".

at some future point when i'm actually logged in, i'm going to go in and rephrase that section, unless i get a really good explanation here as to why that particular word is apt in Falwell's situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the time I wrote the above explanation, the template was removed by Grandmasterka. Obviously, I support that user's decision to remove the template. --DavidGC 22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide a source for the following segment of the article:

"Jerry Falwell was a vocal supporter of racial segregation during the 1950s and 1960s."

Thanks.

LegCircus 14:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

I have no personal allegiance with Falwell, and feel he is inconsequential and unrepresentative of evangelical Christianity at large, but his current Wiki entry is egregiously lopsided. I know the barbaric level of hatred most secularists harbor for this man, but come on--a list of his worst quotes at the end? If you're going to masquerade as a neutral contributor, at least balance this out a little bit; right now it's nothing but a showcase of his embarrassments, public and private, his most radical advocations, his shortcomings and failures, most alarming quotes and wild speculation, among other things.

I won't even attempt to correct this entry because I know my idle time is nowhere near that of this article's authors, but if you can absolutely not refrain from slandering him, at least make the libel presentably subtle.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chipdouglas (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 January 2005.

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

I am no supporter of this man.

However, this article represents a bias against Rev. Falwell and other persons. I cite the other comments on this discussion, the tone and organisation of the article, and my following criticism for placing this article under NPOV dispute.

"He advocates that the United States abolish its public education system, replacing it with church-run schools, similar to the school voucher proposals by the Bush administration."

Mr. Falwell and the Southern Baptist's views on the public school system are very different from those of the Bush administration. This connection should not have been drawn. It is one thing to allow tax money to pay for other education venues; it is entirely another to abolish the public school system and place the education of children as the responsibility of churches.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kbolino (talk • contribs) 08:34, 21 January 2005.

Actually, it takes an unnecessary jab at him with the waterslide incident at PTL, but otherwise leaves him unscathed in that whole incident. I would say that, waterslide aside, it is far too positive in his involvement in PTL. He learned about Bakker's affair, went down to PTL, pressured Bakker out of the seat and put himself in it, took over PTL, closed down PTL, and took some choice broadcasting assets with him. And it was no secret that Bakker's ministry was a rival demonination to begin with. One, for example, that was too tolerant of gays.

The entire section on PTL gives Falwell a "pass" and just brings up a silly, and irrelevant, minor detail. Why Falwell went to PTL and what he ultimately did there should be what is in that section. --68.229.247.168 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To comment on the feeling of this article being bias, yes it is but it is hard to find any good things to say about him if one doesn't follow his show and believe in what he says. He has only come into the media spotlight when he has either said something controversial or sueing someone.

If you wish to ballance the article, add to it, other wise, while the article is bias it is fair because it speaks only of the truth.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SolFruit (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 February 2005.

I feel that we should not attempt to "balance" a description of a person's life which isn't balanced in the first place. Let's not kid ourselves: Falwell is a religious extremist. He thinks his way is the only way; that he should replace public schools to espouse his dogmatic agenda and propaganda; that killing in the name of his religion is perfectly fine, but others doing the same makes them "terrorists;" and the list goes on. Perhaps his life is truly a long list of blunders, errors, and embarrassments which he himself has made. That said, this article describes him and his agenda pretty well. It isn't pretty, but it is true.

Yogensha 23:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's your opinion.the1physicist 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secret Fire 4:10, May 16 2007.

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

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.

Falwell has been on both sides of libel cases. In 1984, he was forced to pay gay activist Jerry Sloan $5,000 after losing a court battle. During a TV debate in Sacramento, California, Falwell denied calling the gay-oriented Metropolitan Community Churches "brute beasts" and "a vile and Satanic system" that will "one day be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven."

When Sloan insisted he had a tape, Falwell promised $5,000 if he could produce it. Sloan did, Falwell refused to pay, and Sloan successfully sued. Falwell appealed, with his attorney charging that the Jewish judge in the case was prejudiced. He lost again and was forced to pay an additional $2,875 in sanctions and court fees.

This is not an action in libel, this is an action in contract. It is unlikely that Sloan could have recovered in libel for these statements, both for lack of standing and also because this would likely be considered pure "opinion" under the common law. 24.215.155.9 13:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this sentence in context:

Since Canadian law forbids comments that incite or advocate hatred toward any "identifiable group," including homosexuals, broadcast tapes sent to Canada are edited to remove any such comments.

Is Sloan Canadian? The court which awarded the money? When read with the text which comes before and after, this sentence seems not to belong in this section or on this page.

Joelsmith 04:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nndb.com/people/241/000054079/

I noticed no mention of one of his latest controversial saying. Ofcourse, I'm refering to his statement advocating the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Giovanni33 08:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just want a source for where Jerry Falwell was a former racial segregationist. That's all...

• • I've placed the word alleged in parantheses until someone can offer a reputable source for that claim.--36Thoughtless

[1] [2] [3] would be a start I presume. The second two are arguably biased, the first is not. A google search for "Falwell" + "Segregationist" turns up many more. JoshuaZ 05:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The Sun Myung Moon Scandal - [4] Donations for TV time - [5] Clinton Chronicles - [6] Estimated Personal Wealth - [7] Selling moon-shine while running a alcohol rehabilitation center. There are other dealings that he was involved with but I don't have the time or interest to follow all of them. (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006

It seems this talk page as well as the article itself have more of a bias against the man, rather than adhering to NPOV. If if were almost any other public figure, would the encyclopedia article be so filled with his failures and offensive remarks? Now, there certainly is a place for it here, considering Falwell's track record in the public arena. But I think it would be worthwhile for someone to take a long, hard look at why we feel the need to "dig up dirt" about this guy, rather than set out doing the job that is required of us under Wikipeida's own policies. Hello? Anyone?

NPOV doesn't mean "50% positive statements", it means neutral... if the overwhelming amount of info on him is negative, that's still abiding by NPOV unless an effort was made to hide positive info. Insisting on 50/50 is in itself a violation of NPOV. Just food for thought.

I agree with whoever posted this. Please refer to WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which is the policy in question. Kasreyn 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Labor unions should study and read the Bible instead of asking for more money. When people get right with God, they are better workers."

Does anyone know of the original citation for this quote? A google search brings up very little. The closest thing I could find was The Right Wing Attack on the American Labor Movement [8] , which references People for the American Way in the footnotes.

George100 06:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Falwell was criticized for those remarks, and for calling the United States a Christian nation, and for saying the devil is Jewish." [9] seems some evidence of this particular quote in google [10]

That's just pure misrepresentation of what Rev. Falwell said. Falwell never said that the "devil is Jewish". Your link gives no support to that comment. He did say that he thought that the "anti-Christ" was likely Jewish because Jesus was a Jew. The anti-Christ would be trying to fool people that he was the new Christ and in order to do that, he would have to be Jewish. Big difference. As for the "Christian nation" comment, Falwell was referring to the principles upon which the U.S. was founded, not that it is a nation only for Christians. Again, big difference. Falwell has always been pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. Sadly you misunderstood. Jtpaladin 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it? Does the Hustler ruling mean a person in the USA cannot get remedy against fraudulent insults to his/her name and his/her family, expecting blood revenge? There is no legal recourse at all? I guess if Revd. Falwell cleared his name of slander by stabbing Larry Flynt in daylight in the main street, any jury would unanimously acquit him. But of course being a christian pastor, he is against violence per definitionem ("turn the other cheek").

So it means his first amendment rights were infringed, because the state-run court denied him legal remedy and due to his religion, he cannot take advantage of the single effective remedy that would be available to an atheist (that is vendetta). This means the state / feds discriminated against Revd. Falwell based on his religion, which is unconstitutional.

Anyhow, in Europe it is impossible. First of all, your photo cannot be published without your permission. Secondly, you can commit slander even if you use a true fact, but the court finds it was used in such a context (or out of context) that the meaning was significantly distorted.

After John Paul II died, a Hungarian tabloid newspaper claimed the late pontiff was a notorious womanizer. Yes, young Karol Woytila is said to have had a fiancee, she was taken to nazi concentration camp and killed during WWII. Karol then abandoned worldly life and eventually became a priest -> bishop -> pope JPII. However the court determined even if true, such factual story cannot be tagged as such that he was a "womanizer" without significant distortion and consequently awarded big damages to the RC church. The sanctity of personality is much better protected in Europe! 195.70.32.136 10:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I follow what you're trying to say, but you should note that article talk pages are for improving the article, not discussing its content in the manner of a debate. There are webforums for that. Kasreyn 08:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

There is an error or at the very least an omission in the Apocalyptic beliefs section. Reverend Bean's Quote does not disagree with Falwell's Quote. Bean - "I think that any correlation that is made with present war making or other political schemes with the events that could lead to a final day and the second coming of Jesus and the separation of the faithful from the rest is an arrogant identification with these present-day events. Falwell-- ""I believe in the premillenial, pre-tribulational coming of Christ for all of his church, and to summarize that, your first poll, do you believe Jesus coming the second time will be in the future, I would vote yes with the 59 percent and with Billy Graham and most evangelicals." Falwell simply said (or at least the portion quoted) that he believed that Christ will come again in the future. The quote didn't say when in the future or if the present war has anything to do with it. It is a faulty assumption to say that since someone believes that Christ is coming again in the future that they believe in the apocalypse and that they believe a war will make Him come sooner. Perhaps, Falwell believes both of those things (although, I doubt it, as they contradict his theology), but a more complete quote is necessary, or the section should be deleted or revised significantly.69.168.19.100Karen D

In fact, as it stands, the Reverend Bean's comments are immaterial and should be deleted, since there is no clear reason why anyone should care what his beliefs are, nor is there a citation substantiating the quote. This article is about Falwell, not Bean.Evaluist 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Falwell with strong beliefs in the Book of Revelations, helped influence George W. Bush into the invasion of IRAQ. Jerry Falwell wanted to play a role in Ancient Babaylon which resides in current day IRAQ. Jerry Falwell wants Ultra Right Wing Christian control of Iraq to fulfill the Biblical Prophecy to sure a place in heaven with other following conservative Christians beliefs.

Don't add nonsense like this to the article unless you can cite a verifiable source. 66.146.62.22 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Competing Apocalyptic Beliefs (Global Warming)

I found it interesting that there is no mention of Mr. Falwell's latest cause for evangelists: "The Myth of Global Warming", and how it is part of a conspiracy against the (business interests in) United States, among other things. Just go to the Moral Majority website and read his article: Evangelicals and Global Warming Added by Detached Observer 03:42, 25 February 2007 (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?

We have way too much editing going on the page right now. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No kidding. I may consider semi-protection if it gets worse. Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be wise - There will be a flood here soon, as I just heard a rumor that he has passed and they are holding the announcement to give the family time. --BenBurch 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOD has already been added into the header. Dirtysocks 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted until the media confirms it. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right On. This is still a BLP. --BenBurch 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Headline news said he has died (from AP) 69.242.51.51 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Radio confirms. --BenBurch 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty University also confirms! Told you he was dead!!130.156.29.61 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that Wiki is not a news service - we don't break news here, we wait for news to be confirmed before changing something like this. Otherwise the amount of speculation here would make the encyclopedia unusable. --BenBurch 17:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this page re-protected? Fallwell was a very controversial person, and the vandalism is becoming rampant, like the "bowel obstruction" edit. --CWSensation 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18679412/?GT1=9155 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.48.8 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The banner at the top of cnn.com confirms Dr. Falwell passed away at the age of 73. --BigDT 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, many of us have personal opinions about this man, myself included. However, for our own integrity, we need to make sure our WP article stays NPOV and factual. I removed the unsourced statement "He is reported to have died from complications arising from a severe bowel obstruction, and I urge every editor to help keep the WP article limited to verified facts as this develops. Vaoverland 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please reserve comments like this for another place. This is a talk page for discussion of the article itself, not our thoughts on his death. While I personally have my own views (which I'm reserving for my blog) about this event, I know this isn't the place. Let's try to keep the clutter down, please? --CWSensation 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Of course, there is no PTL any more. (The PTL Club). So much for a "reliable source". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaoverland (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

That would be Astanhope (look under "history" of this page.) He apparently has a quaint fondness for bowel obstructions. Must remind him of his childhood.Simplemines 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lynchburg General Hospital by the same User:Astanhope user also needs to be monitored. I have warned him that if he inserts this in any article without a reliable source he will be blocked. - Nunh-huh 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the slur in the Lynchburg General Hospital article. Hopefully Astanhope's medical team will have a similar facility removing HIS anal obstructions.Simplemines 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Being dead doesn't make a guy into a saint. Being on Wikipedia means it has to be NPOV, but there's no need to whitewash what he was. Kolindigo 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nor am I saying it does. But we should not be putting lies such as bowel obstructions on a crediable site. We shouldnt be putting our personal opinions in the article. We are here to inform, and the only way to properly inform is to be unbiased. As a gay and Catholic (both things he didnt care for) I feel strongly against him, but sitting here and being hateful to a recently deceased person however evil they may be or perceived to be is wrong. Any decent Human Being would refrain from such childish immature behavior.Shreveport Paranormal 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's way too much vandalism. PS- I've added a 'new' discussion title, seperate from the 'Death confirmed' title. GoodDay 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's 3:14pm on 05/15/2007. I have *JUST* heard an updated COD from Dr. Thomas W. Nygaard talking to a friend of mine. Nygaard is the cardiologist who worked on Falwell. The doctor was discussing how Falwell's color and initial blood tests suggested an accidental combination/overdose of nitroglycerin, erectile dysfunction medicine, and aspirin containing medicine.--70.158.35.226 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend is playing a bit of a joke on you. No cardiologist would make such a ludicrous unprofessional statement. - Nunh-huh 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should invite your friend out to more of your parties. S/He sounds like a blast Alamandrax 10:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually heard this in several places as well (mostly around campus so obviously I have no source and that just increases the likeliness that it's unfounded) but I'll try to dig one up. Sounded pretty bogus to me, but there you are.Recalcitrancy 01:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not care for Jerry Fallwell beings I am Gay And Catholic. He didnt speak well of either group. Despite my personal dislike of him, the man did just pass away. Also this is a place that is supposed to give accurate information. The articles arent there for your personal opinion. The only way we can keep to the purpose of wikipedia is to remain unbiased. I ask that you all keep the personal stuff out of the article itself, the man just died. Please have some decency. Shreveport Paranormal 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the vandalism at Bill Donohue's article, when he passes on. I'm in agreement, personal feelings towards Falwell, don't belong in the article. GoodDay 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same with the talk page. It's here to discuss the article, not personal feelings about the man. --Elliskev 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Done. --Elliskev 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section here is a bit misleading. I found an article in TIME from Sep 02 1985 which states that Falwell opposed apartheid, albeit from a soft stance. He did profess faith that Botha would abolish the system in time, "if only everyone is patient." Furthermore, on calling Tutu a phony, his full quote was "I think he's a phony, period, as far as representing the black people of South Africa."

While not a supporter of his personal philosophies, he should not be misrepresented in this manner. Wikipedia needs to be held to a higher standard.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959695,00.html

DeeKenn 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you. DeeKenn 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

Thank you.Cmichael 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to use it for sourcing some of the "citation needed" tags, but the articles' totally locked now...Here's the citation: Peter Applebome, Jerry Falwell, Leading Religious Conservative, Dies at 73, The New York Times, May 15, 2007. It can be used for citing:

• "His father was a one-time bootlegger."
• "During the Civil Rights Movement, Falwell was a supporter of racial segregation." (not the MLK quote afterwards)

It can also be used to add info on:

• his involvement with Anita Bryant's anti-gay crusade in Florida, as well as similar in California.
• calling President Clinton an "ungodly liar"
• some good quotes attributed to Falwell.

Anyone want to insert these? --Bobak 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article is semi-protected I've inserted some of the above. --Bobak 23:42, 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]

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

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

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

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

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

The Falwell article is needs to specifically address Falwell's long ties to the Reverand Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church.4.88.60.183 11:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source? --BigDT 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the add as best I could. I think a new section should be added just for it, beings it didnt really fit in any established Categories. Also I was unable to get the reference to be added to the bottom of the article.

The link to the flier is : http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/may2007/20070515_jerry-falwell-funeral.pdf please be aware that it uses vile language,and I am in no way supporting This Hate Church, but it bears recording.

Nimrauko 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I removed it just now. This is an article about Falwell, not Westboro Baptist church. If it's notable that they plan/did protest at his funeral, it belongs in the Westboro Baptist Church article, since they seem to protest at just about any funeral they can get to. --Elliskev 00:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beings it pertains to Falwell I added it. I want to hear what others say before its just removed. I am not saying I dont agree, but I feel it should be noted on the page that it was a planned event. Nimrauko 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under social beliefs it states that Falwell changed his views from pro-segregation to anti-segregation in his later years. The cited article is not related to segregation. ----

Excuse me, but you all have left out Rev Falwell's published book in his accomplishments section. This of couse being How to Take it Up the Ass: Falwell's Guide to Succesful Anal HARDcover

That is immature! Please refrain from cluttering the talk page with such garbage.Shreveport Paranormal 01:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[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.

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]

The line, Falwell "never wavered in his fight against the gay agenda" is a POV statement against homosexuality, and a use of weasel words that a) a gay agenda exists and that b) it is "wrong." POV edits will be removed, unless someone opposes it. McDanger 08:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The fact that homosexual activists exist means there is a homosexual agenda; by definition, activists work to accomplish their agenda. Furthermore, those protests they hold, those political actions groups they form, those changes to laws and business policies requiring non-discrimination against homosexuals all are part of an agenda. Whether the agenda was right or wrong, Falwell was opposed to it. So, saying that Falwell never wavered in his opposition to the homosexual agenda is technically accurate. However, it misses the point. Falwell opposed homosexuality, not simply an agenda. Pooua 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "homosexual agenda" is non-neutral and has severe POV connotations. I agree with the anon's proposed wording. JoshuaZ 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon's wording makes it sound like Falwell was some kind of paranoid, fighting his own perceptions. That sounds like POV to me. Better to state that Falwell never wavered in his opposition to homosexuality. I don't see how one could be any more neutral than that. Pooua 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]