Talk:Jerry Falwell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mention of controversies in the lead paragraph

I think it would considerate to mention, in the lead paragraph, at least, that Jerry Falwell had been involved in many controversies as this is one of the main reasons why he is notable. --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:Lede, a short neutral summary would be appropriate. Benjiboi 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Falwell was a very controversial figure.Wageslave (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it got reverted because it came from an anonymous user when mention was made in the paragraph, but I re-added it. The quote, I thought, was appropriate since Falwell never shied away from controversy. We can argue over "controversial" or "very controversial" or "highly controversial" or "wow, WTF" on the talk page if that's an issue. 67.181.62.180 (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Falwellhustler.jpg

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)

I don't think that the following line is ironic

[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)

Presidential Politics: a minor but important change.

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)

Relations with Roman Catholic Church

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)

Twin Brother

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality and tone of article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gay vs. homosexual

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)

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)

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)

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)

Teletubbies article

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)

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)

Article completely misses the point on his attitude to Jews

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)

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

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)

Gutter humor

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)

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)

SOUTHERN Baptist?

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)

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)

Article in Conservapedia's claim

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)

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)