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.

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)

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.

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.

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)

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.

I noticed that this section:

"In 1987, the Federal Election Commission fined Falwell US$6,000 for illegally transferring US$6.7 million in funds intended for his religious ministry to his political action committees."

However the header is still there. Should it be in or not? CambridgeBayWeather 22:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 have lived in jerrys city (Lynchburg) for more than 11 years, and ive the rumor that jerry started his thomas road church to hide profits from his moonshining operation several times. Anyone else heard this? 69.168.21.138 06:23, 21 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.

[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]