Talk:Gail Riplinger

Request to Wikipedia Editors: Due to vandalism, once again, by those who like to remove information they don't agree with and who like to call everyone else the "devil's workers", I am requesting a temporary lock be placed on this page to discourage further vandalism. The last act of vandalism removed all links at the bottom of the article, which the vandal did not like. Thank you. 96.13.195.26 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ¶ On Feb 17th 2011 this article is a mere shadow of what it was two years ago. Riplinger is, for better or worse, highly influential in some circles and thorough and detailed treatment of her is entirely justified. Sussmanbern (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

B.F. Westcott and W.W. Westcott will never be the same person, no matter how many times GAR's supporters quote her attempts to make them appear as if they even could have been the same person. Like this article expressly points out, their birth and death dates do not match. Check them out. That should be the end of the discussion. The person calling themselves "Linguisticsclass-Student" has attempted to keep GAR's speculation going by posting material that argues with the actual documented fact placed in the article. This is contributing to the slander of an individual, which is puzzling coming from people who claim they pursue the truth. All a person has to do is check B.F. Westcott's son's book for themselves to see the absurdity of GAR's false claims. After dragging on and on the nonsensical B.F. and W.W. Westcott connection, she herself half admits in the footnote buried at the back of her ridiculously long book that it is "speculation" on her part. However, throughout her book, she leads the reader to believe the "Westcott" she mentions frequently (often without any first and second name initials) in conjunction with H.P. Blavatsky is B.F. Westcott instead of who it actually was: London coroner and avowed occultist W.W. Westcott. Even the books on the occult that GAR quotes from in New Age Bible Versions speak of it being Dr. W.W. Westcott who was involved with the occult world of Blavatsky, not Anglican Bishop B.F. Westcott who wrote many books that openly glorify God and his Son. GAR's main motive for distorting the factual information about B.F. Westcott and his identity is to protect herself, because she has lied about B.F. Westcott through her entire book. What cowardice to admit only at the very back of your book that your speculations just might be in error. Therefore, she has to forge a connection between the two men that never existed and she did it on purpose to present the wildly sensational and fictional accounts that have proven for her successful book sales. Until some GAR supporter comes along who has actually read the source materials that GAR purports to quote from in her books DON'T come around here and attempt to change the work that people who have their facts together have done here. Those who wish to further spread the lies, hate, and slander of Gail Riplinger are not welcome to contribute to this article. Any information that is not backed on fact that can be confirmed WILL be speedily deleted. If you really do believe in defending the truth, then prove it by checking GAR's information with the sources she has listed for you in her books. None of you have yet to prove from any kind of concrete fact that B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were any of the things you say they were (liberals, occultists, New Agers, etc.) instead of just quoting your mentor Gail Riplinger. Do some research, like the rest of us have. 67.142.130.19 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just as I suspected, ALL KJV/GAR defenders are not allowed any "positive" edits on this page. An example of "positive" is -She is smart. A negative comment is -She is a prostitute(THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE OR FALSE TO MAKE IT NEGATIVE). No moderators are keeping watch on this!! Everything in the previous paragraph by 67.142.130.19 are POV. ANYONE who looks at the handwritten letter by B.F. Westcott will undoubtly see the possible interpretation "W.W.Westcott"!!! There are only a few quotes directed at "WW" and they are footnoted. ALL other quotes are from B.F. Westcott!! She is pointing out things that New Agers and Modern Theologians have in common. These are the facts and according to Wikipedia rules YOU are to leave them unedited! NO NEGATIVE comments about LIVING PERSONS. If you want to bash her, go build your own web page!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguisticsclass-student (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You know, you just DON'T get IT. You REFUSE to get it. You'd rather protect your ignorance of the facts by not checking into the facts, because those facts could just very possibly pop your bubble and prove that your support of GAR is not what it should be. It doesn't matter to you people how many times we state that we have checked the facts, you keep accusing us of using POV, bias, bashing, etc. You just won't check into things the way we have. We can back everything we say about the claims of GAR. Your comment added earlier was not worded in an encyclopedic manner and it wasn't positive either. It just tried to cover for the lie GAR has made throughout her book against Anglican theologians Westcott and Hort. It doesn't matter if B.F. Westcott's signature resembles whatever someone thinks they might see when looking at it--B.F. Westcott and W.W. Westcott were not born and did not die at the same time--they are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE! Do you get it yet??? No, you enjoy vicious slander and that is why GAR's teachings, sadly, suit you. You just want to believe what you want to believe. A lot of people's sloppy signatures could resemble those of other people--so what?! That GAR thinks B.F.'s signature looks like it says W.W. is subjective but she uses it as if it proves fact. I have volume 2 of B.F.'s bio right here. Like GAR, you fail to mention the little lower-case T-appearing thing in between the two cursive characters that GAR imagines are W's. His son pointed out that he had sloppy handwriting, so no wonder "B.F." is illegible--no-brainer! GAR failed to say that the "Westcott" portion of his signature doesn't look like it says "Westcott" either--due to its illegibility. The entire signature looks more illegible (unreadable) than it looks like it says "W.W. Westcott." Looking at it, it is next to impossible to know what the signature says, except for his son explaining that the sloppy handwriting--which he says was difficult to read in most of Westcott's letters--was that of his father B.F. It doesn't look any more like it says "WW Westcott" than it looks like it says "B.F. Westcott." The point you are trying to make is pointless and you now it. You are here to stir up strife. If anything, your comments only reinforce GAR's dishonesty in using questionable information to try to prove a false fact that she has created and that sells her books. If GAR were actually just drawing parallels between WW and BF then she would not have made the bold statement that "Blavatsky mentions B.F. Westcott in some of her books." "Books" by the way, that GAR never gives titles or page numbers to so that her information can be verified. If B.F. Westcott was personally involved with Blavatsky in the occult, together as friends and closely acquainted with one another, then I'd want to know where I can go read about it in Blavatsky's book. But GAR has withheld such information and instead just makes a flat statement backed on nothing but hot air. The truth is, Blavatsky mentions W.W. Westcott, which has already been proven by obvious facts to be a different person. You rightly call yourself a "student" of Linguisticsclass. Your lack of logic, honesty, and reasoning is no different than hers. If GAR was only drawing a comparison, as you said, then why the long endnote to explain her knowledge that the information she placed in the book was not fact and just "speculation"?? Since you like the false comparison between W.W. Westcott and B.F. Westcott, why don't you go to the Wikipedia article for W.W. Westcott and try to make your case over there; show your parallels over there. If you want to spread false information about GAR that makes her look good and honest, rather than the liar she is in her books, go build your own web site and leave this Wikipedia article alone!! Beat your dead horse somewhere else. 67.142.130.19 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

"No negative comments about living persons"? I think you misunderstand. You aren't allowed to spread SLANDER about a living person (or dead). Negative comments are allowed if they are verifiable, and the information in the article that you perceive as "negative" has references. --DearPrudence (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am new to Ms Riplinger's work. Over the years I have often noted how a person's entire life's work can sometimes be negated by character assassination, I have suffered this experience myself in my work. Whether a person's work be partly wrong or not there is always something to be gleaned from it by all - those against and those for a person's work, lets not trash people's work because of our stance in regards to other peoples background -good or bad.Eg: if we were to discard J H Yoder's 'The Politics of Jesus' because of his personal life would we and the rest of society be worse off or better off? Lets look at what we can gain from this information that is provided by Ms Riplinger that we can all agree on. I too am concerned about how popular opinion seems (to me at least) to sometimes influence Bible translations (eg: would we even have inclusive Bible translations if there were no political correctness 'agendas' in western society?) and then how Bible translation can seem to affect theology or how the Bible is interpretated by simple Bible students like myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.130.254 (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

58.111.130.254: I understand what you are saying. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but as for Riplinger, there is nothing in her books that is positive or that all can agree on--except if one doesn't mind lying, character assassination, or outright deception. I have checked large portions of Ms. Riplinger's book New Age Bible Versions and not one bit of information I have verified so far is backed by truth. Half-truth doesn't count. As for her quoting of anyone who disagrees with her, look out; she has altered every single quotation of Westcott and Hort used in her books. Perhaps, what a person can learn from all of that is not to lie about and slander others. Riplinger's false teachings have hurt my church and that is just wrong. Riplinger's books are a sad example of what can come about as a result of freedom of speech. Readers, beware. What I have learned from Riplinger is that KJOism has no solid foundation and that people like her are willing to lie if it means making their argument appear correct. As a Christian, I say, that is still lying and God hasn't changed his mind.67.142.130.19 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can we assume then that you have never lied? 'let those without sin cast the first stone'. Ms Riplinger is not the only person who questions the motives of Westcott and Hort.If you check this article you may be surprised, http:www.febc.edu.sg/VPP47.btm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.150.22 (talk • contribs)

Please do not attempt to change the subject from the problems about Gail Riplinger being addressed here. Just because all people have lied at some point in their life or because all have sinned has nothing to do with excusing any false teacher or any of their lies. Peter wrote an excellent chapter in his second epistle (chapter 2) concerning "false prophets" and "false teachers," yet he had also lied and sinned, but this did not disqualify him from addressing the subject. I don't care how many might question Westcott and Hort because I own most of their books and therefore know what they really wrote and believed. And if Riplinger is excused because everyone has told a lie or has sinned, making her wicked behavior of no big deal, then the same measure of exoneration can also be granted to Westcott and Hort, by their accusers, according to your weak argument. Please consider not listening to what others have taught you, but do your own research instead. Put some real effort into it and go to the libraries, look up the source books used by Riplinger, and verify her lying quotations and false information for yourself. In other words, please do what every other GAR supporter on this Talk page has been asked to do and do your own research before daring to argue with those who have. And if you are, by some chance (since you appear to be from the same country) the same person who posted just above who said "I am new to Ms Riplinger's work," then you are not as Unbiased as you claimed in your "edit summary" note.67.142.130.40 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well put. One can't excuse Riplinger's lies because "everybody does it". --DearPrudence (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes I can see your point - I agree with you -you don't seem to care what other people opinion's are. And no I am not a fan of Riplinger (at least until you began attacking me) and I had not made up my mind about her. But well, seeing as I am supposively bias already I might as well make the crime fit your judgment.I will start advertising her work from today. All you have done is make me wonder about your motives in attacking people who are simply making enquiries about Riplinger's work.You might have me won to your viewpoint had you taken the time to think before you attacked me. I had only heard of her from a friend early this month and was still making a decision about her work. But I think I would rather be a supporter of Riplinger than end up judgmental like you two. Riplinger would appear to be putting her money where her mouth is. I suggest you nasty people do the same and write a book to refute her claims. Or do you lack conviction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.150.22 (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Who attacked you? How are we being "judgmental"? --DearPrudence (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you choose to support Riplinger without having done your own research into her claims, simply because of your perception of someone's reply to you, then go right ahead. If you are swayed that easily by something, your mind was most likely already made up. It is only you who are responsible for your choices and your actions. No one can force you to do anything you don't really want to do. There were a lot of excuses why people chose to follow Hitler, too, but did that make them right? No, they will answer for their choices and won't be able to blame anyone but themselves. If you choose to advertise the work of a liar, whom you have not verified to be a truth teller, then that is your burden, no one else's. To quote you, "let those without sin cast the first stone," is not a judgmental remark against someone who has taken the time to verify the gross errors of Riplinger's work?? Please, reread your own post. And then, please go and read that scripture in proper context. Your own words show that checking something before believing it is not on the top of your list. You "heard" about Riplinger from a friend. So have thousands of others who believe her lies and buy her books. And, pray tell, what were you doing to "make a decision" about her work? If you choose to support Riplinger over those you perceive as "judgmental" just because you don't like their reply or their "opinion" then you need to know that Ms. Riplinger herself is very judgmental. Be sure you check out her "magazine" Blind Guides, where she rips (no pun intended) into every single Christian who has dared to expose the error of her work in a scriptural manner. And calling people "nasty" isn't judmental, now is it? No, that's because you believe you are justified in your opinion, which is the only right one, even though haven't bothered to find out if Riplinger is someone worthy of the support of honest people. Unless you lack conviction, go and verify Riplinger's teachings before allowing your emotions to support her in spite of someone else. Real conviction checks into things. You won't be able to say that you were not warned.67.142.130.19 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You attacked my integrity, eg 'weak argument','put some in REAL effort'.'daring to arque','you are not as unbiased' etc. If that is not being judgmental I don't know what is. Your not seeing that you are being judgmental suggests to me that you lack insight when communicating with others. Perhaps you have been doing it for so long that maybe this is normal for you. Try to be a little more objective. Remember you can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.I am not going to check out this discussion any longer as it obvious you like to argue for the sake of argueing. Tranquil Hombre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.150.22 (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your integrity was not attacked; you don't like that your "don't judge" argument backfired. If you are going to throw your "don't judge" argument into the ring, be prepared to accept the argument that is returned. Your post was full of accusation even though you have not done your own research to prove if Riplinger is telling the truth in her work. You chose to accuse people who have done their own research and you didn't receive the outcome you wanted. It was ok to share your opinion but it isn't ok for anyone else to. And, yes, your comment was judgmental. Please reread it. You didn't even address the part about the errors made against Westcott and Hort. Like most trollers, you pick and choose what you want to raise Cain over. Don't attack others just because they have done their homework and don't wish to support the work of a liar/slanderer. It boils down to your not liking the answer you got, and if you want to support a liar like Riplinger because of that, then that's your responsibility. Don't blame anyone else.67.142.130.19 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I thought I might revisit this site just once more. While I found Ms Ripinger's work is interesting I don't think all her work can conclusively point to any reason her work should exclude the use of modern translations. I am satisfied to use translations such as the NRSV and others. Even early dated commentaries that I consulted suggest that not all of the words chosen for the KJV are adequate. Others can decide for themselves.

Reminder: All information added to this article, and any of its edits, must have references to back it. Any POV wording, biased wording, removal of previous editors' references that back their information, weasel words, etc. are not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Do not cut and paste portions of the article according to your opinion or bias. Objective material has a source to back it and references must be given. One's own opinion does not count as a source or a reference. Just because the sourced information placed by another editor is not liked or agreed with is not grounds to change the article to suit one's own beliefs. Encyclopedias do not work that way. In other words, this article is not a place to defend Gail Riplinger simply because you like her, her books, and what she teaches, or because you just agree with her, unless you have factual sources to back up the information.

I am asking that another lock (accessibly by registered users only) be placed on this article the next time it is vandalized in the manner it has previously been.FannyMay (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the temporary lock on the article.FannyMay (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I fear we are at that stage again, as reason cannot get through to some people. Ian Prove to me that im wrong or leave the article alone! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

As I said earlier, if you actually read the Chick Publications website, they "Visit Gail Riplinger's website at http://www.avpublications.com" which indicates that Chick publications is the affiliate site. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh so now your ready to admit they are affiliates?! Ah well TOO LATE! I'm also going to let them know that you just deleted my vandalisation report about you from the article! I think it's best you leave me alone now! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The entire point of your earlier argument was "Chick publications is the official site." That was incorrect. WP:EL allows official sites, but not sites that the person has worked with a little, especially in a spammy matter by someone who has only pushed a pro-Chick POV on articles. Ian.thomson (talk)

"but not sites that the person has worked with a little" Now you KNOW that is a lie! As it is clearly stated on the site how long & what extent they are her representatives. Furhermore you are still trying to attempt to ignore the fact they are reffered to in much of her materials making them a primary source of information. And including the HISTORICAL FACT they are her publishers is no where near it being "pro-Chick POV on articles." As they are NOT even mentioned, THATS the problem! (And you say you have no bias, but i cant help but wonder how you have come to this conclusion) Apparently I must also warn you that you are now the subject of a discussion for abuse, so consider yourself warned! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you want to mention them in the article, then do it within the prose of the article. With a citation to the reliable source that backs your claim. Don't just add an external link in the links section. Which criterion of the external links policy do you think this meets? It's not her official website. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also, I don't know if you're looking at it or not, but just in case you aren't: you should read the responses you've gotten on your personal talk page, which is located here: User talk:AnthonyMark00. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

No this is all new to me & the interfaces are taking some getting used to.. I honestly didnt think wiki was this bad. I ask if I wanted to see what books she had written, where from the article can we get that? And I have had the time to look into this even further! Why is this not considered an offical site for her? As NO ONE ELSE IN THIS WORLD IS PRINTING HER BOOKS! (As far as I know!) AnthonyMark00 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

"I don't know about something, so it must not exist" is horribly unreasonable. Did you consider actually looking at her official website, because it's obvious to anyone who does a cursory glance over the site that AV publications publishes her works. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) It's okay if you're new, but you really need to calm down and discuss it here, and stop editing the article for the time being. I promise there's no secret cabal out to get anyone; it's just a few honest misunderstandings on your part about Wikipedia policy. It's not considered an official site for her because she doesn't own the site. The definition of what Wikipedia considers an official website can be found here. The first criterion says that the subject must have control over the contents of the site. But, the site you're linking isn't owned by Ms. Riplinger, and she doesn't control its content, so it's not her official website. That's why it shouldn't be included. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see, thanks Writ AnthonyMark00 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have now archived most of the old discussions on this talk page, with the exception of the most recent topic (just above this one), which seems to be still active. If there are any other old discussions that you believe should still be here, feel free to move them back. Most of them are quite long, however, so unless you strongly feel that any should be reinstated as an active discussion, I would suggest you leave them in the archive (which can be accessed by clicking the link in the archive box near the top of the page). --DearPrudence (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

How much of this article is original research? Do we have actual reliable sources listing these criticisms? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

JoshuaZ, the page references of the books used by Riplinger to misquote her subjects are clearly listed in the article. Westcott and Hort, for example, lived 100 over years ago. Their biographies, which she cites in her material and has used to change their words and make them say things they never said, are what have been used in this article to show what their biographies actually DO say. The largest part of Riplinger controversy is contained in her gross misquotation and misrepresentation of what other people actually said. Her own sources have been utilized in showing that she has manipulated people's words while claiming her account is the correct one. Also, the videos cited in the article can be viewed online by clicking on the link attached to them. So, yes, the "criticisms" are reliable. All one has to do is take the information provided here and check them out. You can view the majority of the books about Westcott and Hort, used by Riplinger in her books, at www.archive.org and check what was actually written about them.FannyMay (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

See no original research. Do we have reliable sources that have made these criticisms? If not, this is a synthesis and we can't have it here. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I believe this was already explained in my previous reply. However, I will explain once again and hope that it is clear. The information regarding Riplinger's misquotations of Westcott and Hort, as well as information provided in the Bio section, is NOT original research, and it is NOT opinion. Riplinger has used the biographies of Westcott and Hort in her book New Age Bible Versions. She has taken their quotes and words out of context (as is illustrated in the article), she has reworded what they actually said, and then placed her misquotes into her book, presenting them as fact. In other words, she has made up some very serious fibs about these men, and others, from which she has sold her books and made money. Riplinger's career as a "Bible protector" is marred by gross misrepresentation and the fictionalizing of actual events. Every example placed in this article that addresses her misquotations of Westcott and Hort, and others, is documented in the article with the page number of her book, where her misquoting occurs, and the page number of the sources (W & H bios, etc. cited by Riplinger in her books) cited by Riplinger, where the correct quotations are found. Anyone can easily verify that she has taken people's words out of context and changed their words. The recent vandalism to the article is what has placed "original research" into the article. The vandal's changes to the article lack references and he/she has been changing documented information from the objective to the subjective, as well as altering the encyclopedic style that is necessary for any integrity that Wikipedia hopes to have. The information I have placed in the article has references from the actual books. I gave the links where you, and anyone else, can find these books online and read them online. It is vandalism to an article that is not to be tolerated, unless cutting vandalism is no longer important to Wikipedia. In that case, then the entire article needs to be wiped and locked, otherwise the vandalism will continue and this site will go to the dogs.FannyMay (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please read our policy on original research. Has anyone other than Wikipedia made the conclusions that these quotes are misquoted? If not, it is original research. If for example a newspaper or a noted historian or Biblical scholar reaches these conclusions we could quote that. But saying that she has misquoted based on primary sources is a synthesis and we can't do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's ridiculous. This is why wikipedia is such a failure. At least, it's one of the main reasons. Book A says this. Book B quotes Book A incorrectly as saying that. Now, who needs Book C to say that Book B misquotes Book A? Answer: an imbecile (i.e., wikipediots). There's "original research" and then there's "self-evident." All the great minds of all time would (and do) give Wikipedia a big fat F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.41 (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree 100%. Something is "original research" because a third party scholar isn't being quoted to prove the obvious?? Book B quotes book A incorrectly, showing that book B is in error, and we need a scholar to tell the obvious in book C? This is Wikipedia's main fatal flaw.67.142.130.49 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article would also be quite a bit shorter and more readable if we just replaced all these examples and analysis with "so-and-so expert#1 details many examples of riplinger misquoting and misrepresenting her sources.^[1] so-and-so expert#2 details many examples of riplinger making factual errors.^[2]" Honestly, riplinger may be a key character in the kjv-only-controversy, but in the grand scheme, she's just another self-publishing nobody that doesn't deserve an article this long.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you to Prof.Woodruff for posting the download links for Dr. James Price's letter to Riplinger and the article he wrote addressing the falsehoods found in the main arguments of the King James-only camp.96.14.193.57 (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I SMELL SOMETHING FISHY I am a little confused. Click Publications as far as I know have been one of the main publishers of Gail Riplingers books for many years now. I added a link to thier profile of her but that has been deleted?!

Thats fishy, why would someone want to delete that!?! I wonder.. As I see some people trying to slip in attack sites as refferences, and a lot of them are hosted on the servers of a RIVAL BOOK PUBLISHER! Who's sales have been hit significantly by Mrs Riplinger & this whole movement!

I would like to make the Wiki authors (non Christian) monitoring this article aware that we may be dealing with some corporate representatives here.

And more evidence to this is when you look at the Wiki Page for Click Publications that looks vandalised & someone has failed to even mention their most poular selling book.. Gail Riplingers. It appears that the people and organisations against her & this movement have embedded themselves in the wiki editorial community.

Which is a shame really, to see so many professing Christians lying! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

First read WP:AGF and WP:Vandalism. You have no evidence that anyone here is working for a rival company, so don't be paranoid, and don't call good-faith edits vandalism (keep doing it and you'll get in trouble for attacking other editors). Second, Chick Publications is known for publishing works by liars and psychopaths, so anything they publish hardly qualify as reliable. Third, you failed to provide any explanation in your edit summary why you added the link, and you didn't bother discussing things with the editor who removed the link.

And finally, you do not know men's hearts as the Lord does, quit pretending to judge who is or isn't Christian. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

"why would someone want to delete that!?! I wonder.."...was there something unclear about my edit summary ? As I said, a cursory look at the articles on evolution and homosexuality shows that it's worthless garbage. It's far, far worse than that, but I shall not elaborate. This is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources (which for interest doesn't include sources like the Bible in any of its published forms, or any other Abrahamic religious texts such as the Hebrew Bible and Quran, unless the statement in Wikipedia is of the form "The Bible says X" i.e. with attribution to the primary source and not in the neutral reliable unattributed narrative voice of the encyclopedia). The chick.com site certainly doesn't qualify as a reliable source. External links must be "helpful to the reader". Read the guidelines (WP:EL) that describe the decision procedure editors should follow when considering external links, in particular, the WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE and WP:ELNO sections. The link you added is to a site that publishes garbage. The info on the subject of this article, an article covered by WP:BLP, adds no value at all, and has zero reliability. The link doesn't qualify for inclusion via WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. The instructions are to link to the subject's official site, and that is what we do. And if you think I am religious in any way whatsoever or here to attack the subject of this article you are very much mistaken. I have this article watchlisted because is prone to disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You have highlited and demonstrated ALL that is wrong with this article in your previous post. And you are an example of the prevasiveness I have found so far from the editors here on Wikipedia. You talk about Wikipedia guidelines, so you know that you MUST to clarify to us exactly what the Chick Publications articles on evolution and homosexuality have to do with the FACT (Which you seem to have a problem with) that they are one, if not the main publishers of her books?

Nothing at all! And simply writing "it's worthless garbage." Is by no means CLOSE to the standards reguired to exclude article evidence.

I dont even understand how you think you can make that argument & try and twist the rules to allow you to get away with it?! You should know I'm not that stupid. Your argument is a NON argument as facist groups such as Combat 18 are listed on Wikipedia and there you will find direct links to their official websites and affiliates.

This is the case for many pages on Wikipedia. And you claim that you have no "dog in this fight" but looking back through your history shows another story.

I will also inform you that I had read though the guidelines before making any edits and find your attitude quite egotistical & ignorant to say the least. The link to the company that has been publishing her books are 'Official links' and as stated in Wiki policy are helpful to give the reader an idea of what the subject says about themselves!

If GR had 10 websites & affiliates we would have to link them ALL regardless of what you think of them!. That alone destoys all of your arguments. But I am not fooled by you and will be escalating this further if I can.

Normally I would say provide evidence or LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE! BUT YOU HAVE NOT EVEN DONE THAT MUCH! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

And furthermore have you actually listened to her lecture "New Age Bible Versions"? It's on YouTube, how do you think I first knew that they where her publishers? Because this company is refferenced to DIRECTLY in the content she has produced both in book & video! Which makes it PRIMARY EVIDENCE!

NOW I AM WATCHING YOU! Please do not change the article again UNLESS you provide EVIDENCE they are NOT her book publishers! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

As I've explained before, Youtube videos are not accepted as evidence. You also need to work on your attitude. Wikipedia is not a battleground, so quit looking for a fight. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it again. I've already explained why. You can include external links that meet the WP:EL inclusion criteria. This link does not. We already link to her official site. Your link provides nothing apart from some text about the subject that could have been written by anyone, may be completely false like much of the other amazingly bigoted and ignorant material on that site, and is, for Wikipedia's purposes, not suitable for an article covered by WP:BLP. Try not to disrupt a charity, it's wrong. Follow the rules. And regarding "you MUST to clarify to us", who is "us" ? If you are connected to the publisher, read the conflict of interest guidelines and stop editing the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your talking complete nonsense. What have I written that makes you think I want to fight? And what videos are you talking about? Her lectures or her quotes are not accepted as her evidence?.. See what I mean? There is no video that I have linked on that site but to the profile of their authors & Gail Riplingers page! As mentioned above the website is that of Chick Publications. Chick Publications have been one of the main publishers of Gail Riplingers work over the years. It is mentioned in much of her written & video materials.

And as an Official Site Affiliated with AV Publications. You have so far not demonstrated why this link does NOT meet the WP:ELinclusion criteria. You have not proven that this is NOT an official site!

"Your link provides nothing..." WHAT?! This is FAR from ridiculous! Why dont you take the time to do some proper research, take the time to verify who they are, so that you are not guilty of being a bigot & ignorant.

And I would argue that it is YOUR actions here that are in question. As they would be more advantageous to the likes of the Lockman Foundation & others! And as I stated before "We already link to her official site." is not a good enough reason to exclude sources that are directly quoted in her materials. (Check out the British National Party page)

I WILL REPEAT THIS ONCE AGAIN!! I ASSERT THAT CHIC PUBLICATIONS WEBSITE IS AN OFFICIAL AFFILIATE OF AV PUBLICATIONS AND GAIL RIPLINGER. AS STATED FROM HER & THEIR MATERIALS. THIS IS IN LINE WITH WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES AS BEING AN OFFICIAL SITE OF THE SUBJECT AS WELL AS PRIMARY EVIDECE.

YOU CANNOT REMOVE THIS UNLESS YOU DEMONSTATE THAT THEY ARE !!!NOT!! AN OFFICIAL SITE OF AV PUBLICATIONS & GAIL RIPLINGER! It's as simple as that!

We need an administrator on this article. As your actions are malevolent! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

AnthonyMark00, if you actually read the Chick Publications website, they "Visit Gail Riplinger's website at http://www.avpublications.com" which indicates that Chick publications is the affiliate site. Now, if we were to treat you the way you've been treating others (and you must want us to treat you that way given that you surely know "do unto others as you would have them do unto you,") we could accuse you of being a corporate shill for Chick publications. We're not (unless good evidence comes up), because we're going to continue to assume good faith, something you need to learn to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Check out the British National Party page"...hilarious. Man, you're not doing yourself any favors with that one. Have you considered using larger colored fonts for emphasis ? It works well in illuminated manuscripts. Your quite shouty with the CAPS. Cut it out. Also, you'll note that NawlinWiki, an administrator, has dropped by, removed your vandal note and left you a message. If you want to continue editing the article you need to change your approach, slow down, read about the key policies and guidelines, and just follow the rules. That is especially important here because it is covered by WP:BLP. If you don't, and you continue like this, I can assure you that the privilege to contribute to this encyclopedia will be removed by someone at some point. Seen it hundreds of times before. Remember, there are millions of other articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I dont even remember talking to you!.. I'm sorry but I dont appreciate the advice, not after the disparaging comments I found you wrote about me on your page. If you want to chat. I suggest YouTube! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You were talking with mostly him yesterday... Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, Anthony, this is 100% not a threat or anything, just some advice: I think you'd be well-advised to just drop this entire line of discussion, along with any other lines on this page, or relating to the editors you've been in conflict with. It will get you nowhere fun. It's a wide wiki; there's gotta be something else you can spend time on. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have writ, but what am I supposed to do? Have him leaving comments like he has about me onhis page? As you can see above, all I have done is to inform him of my feelings. As you can see from the records this is in response to what he wrote! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, that's not dropping it, that's continuing to focus on this page. Dropping it would be leaving this page, and going to a different one and trying new things there. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Yes. Ignore it. I'm now telling you in my admin capacity to drop it, both the issue and any issues you have with the editors. Enough is enough. Don't go to his page and you won't have to read whatever comments he makes. I'm sure he'll extend the same courtesy to you. If you post any more rants like you did at WP:ANEW, blocks will follow in short order, if indeed another admin hasn't decided on a block already. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Believe it or not, I'm sick of it too.. Done AnthonyMark00 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please don't add this back in, it's spurious and unsubstantial. Anunction (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have any concrete, verified proof that it is "spurious and unsubstantial"? Or are you just sharing your opinion based on how you feel about Riplinger?96.14.157.41 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Edit: After a quick look I found, interestingly enough, that most of the criticisms were ripped word-for-word from an outspoken web-site opposing Gail Riplinger

Therefore, I will instead link to that web-page and delete all copied information as it is not unbiased. Anunction (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bias is "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." If you think the information stated about Riplinger is biased in that it is "unfair" in your view then why don't you set yourself about proving that the information against her is incorrect, instead of just saying it is. You can't just remove material as you wish just because you think it is "not unbaised." If you think the information against her is not truthful or is somehow unfair then prove it by verifying what she claims for yourself. Do what those have done who have found gross errors in her material. Don't just talk about it, do it. Just calling it biased or untrue doesn't count. If you judge the corrections taken against Riplinger as wrong, when you have not checked the validity of her teachings for yourself, you too are biased. Bias is removed by seeking out what the truth is in a matter and then standing with the truth.96.14.157.41 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the article is substantial and the information needs to be there for people to learn about what she is doing. Thebibleman (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

¶ Gail A. Riplinger has repeatedly and emphatically claimed that all English translations of the Bible, except for the KJV, are inspired by Satan and worked up by (and for) people who worship Satan. She provides no particular evidence for this, just vague attacks on various people involved with one or another version/edition of the Bible. Her writings are chockablock with errors, deliberate distortions, wild suppositions - anything but clear-minded evidence. Yet her books are considered, with the peculiar genre of Bible bookstores, to be best sellers. I think it is a disservice to people seriously seeking the facts not to provide some material that show the defects in her propaganda. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The latest editing of this article sounds very biased against those who are not King-James-only and overly supportive of those who are, making it sound as if Riplinger is just a victim without responsibility for actual errors and misrepresentations in her material. It needs to be rewritten with a far less biased tone.96.15.128.103 (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree. It is now October 27, 2021, and the article still sounds at least somewhat biased against those who have critiqued Riplinger's works.DollyArtist2013 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I removed most of the anti-Riplinger stuff because it was crowding up a biographical article about the woman. The exact nature of the controversies surrounding her work is explored in the outside links.

And speaking of links, I found it interesting that Riplinger's own website was not listed among them before I posted it; but just the site of one supporter amid a boat-load of critical links. Talk about biased.

As a point of fact, I in no way support her work or her contentions. I have opinions of the KJVO movement in general, and of Riplinger's contributions in particular, that are far from favorable. If anything, my version of the Riplinger article is still a bit biased AGAINST her, but I did the fairest job I could. Kael (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kael, I understand where you are coming from. However, the part about her being "accused" of misquoting other sources seems biased in her favor. There is a large handful of people who have never published a book of Riplinger quote-critiques but have checked her quoting of other people in her books and found that she is guilty of misquoting, on a large scale, other people's material, wording, etc.; something known as slander. They are not so much accusing her as they are indicating the discovery of her gross misrepresentation of others. I am one of those people and have done a lot of work over the past 3 years verifying her misquotations with the actual sources she cites in her books. People such as James White, who did publish a book showing Riplinger's misquotations, are not alone in verifying her sources and claims. Those who have called her out on it are not attacking her but are defending the truth and the words and reputations of those misquoted by her. The KJV movement has enough controversy, without adding Riplinger's real controversies. Sadly, the misrepresentations in her books have done nothing but add fuel to the fire of KJOism and suck in a lot of gullible people. So, people are not attacking her but calling her out on something of which she has actually been found guilty.96.15.199.202 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

As a pro KJV proponent, I have checked a lot of her sources, and yes, she is a bit careless and jumps the gun to some probably true but unverifiable (her sources) conclusions.

However, the damning stuff she does get right, no one seems to want to mention.

She has correctly identified new age influence of many modern textual critics and their ecumenical stances. Much of these claims anyone can find by reading their own materials.

They were and are Liberal Churchmen; a fact.

Modern Textual Criticism (Invented by Westcott & Hort) is far removed from evidence based TC prior of the KJV and it's predecessors.

Her personal life, that she's a liar about a past marriage is simply not true. This hubbub stems from an interview in which she was asked if she'd been married before. She answered, "I've been married to the same man for 25 years". She never denied a previous marriage, she just didn't answer the question. Then, a campaign to besmirch her further was launched, which was the real lie.

This kind of treatment against an author is unprecedented. A liberal theologian would never be subject to such scrutiny and demonization. Does anyone go behind them and check all their sources? A number of their personal lives are a shamble (e.g. Kurt Aland's mistress, co-author)

Such concerted one-sided scrutiny shows an extreme hatred for suggestions the KJV is accurate, and for anyone who dares to question modern translators and their works.

(I have listened to James White as he said that he considered the Koran to be Scripture...and Riplinger is the nut case?). 35.129.171.37 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article is receiving some major attention on the BLP noticeboard. A couple of editors have tried to fix the BLP issues and have gotten reverted. I see that there are some editors with some very strong issues on this aricle, but please let me caution you that if the edit warring keeps up, this article is likely to receive some administrative attention that nobody wants.

That said, I would like for someone who cares about this article to please explain to me why there is a huge link farm in this article with links to negative sites, whenever I have never seen any other BLP with such a list. What does this contribute to the article and why is it so important to risk an edit war?Jarhed (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that link farm is about the worst case I've seen for a long time. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

<- Okay, I've looked at every site and cleaned it up. I've put a note in each edit summary. Ext links must comply with WP:EL. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

That looks lovely, but similiar edits by other editors have been reverted.Jarhed (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've added it to my watchlist. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Me too. Reading the talk, there are some editors that have some serious concerns about this individual. I am fine with that, but I want to help them get their sources straight.Jarhed (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, well, I've never heard of Riplinger, I know nothing about the King-James-only POV battles and I'm used to working in the Israel-Palestine conflict area of wikipedia which is about as heated as it gets...so this article is like a holiday. :) I guess the main thing is to make sure that the focus stays on Riplinger given that this should be an easily sourced BLP rather than it drifting off to become a WP:COATRACK for King-James-only POV battles...whatever they are. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The fix to a link farm is "simple": If an external link is a reliable source, then brief information from any encyclopedic content at the external link can be incorporated into the article, and the link used as a reference. That requires effort, but is the only acceptable procedure for an article in general, and a BLP in particular. That is, the link farm needs to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a biography but has almost no information about Gail Riplinger except her birth. Is there a reason her three marriages and any children (if any) from any of these marriages are not mentioned? I don't think it unreasonable to expect these issues in a biographical page. Have they been added and removed or simply not added? Or is that information refuted? I don't think it contentious and does not even relate directly to her work and beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.130.121 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

People have repeatedly added material from an attack site and it has been repeatedly reverted as a WP:BLP violation. If you have a genuine policy compliant reliable source that contains information appropriate for Riplinger's biography by all means add it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since when is a site that gives alternative information on a biographical subject an "attack site"? That site happens to have documented info. D.A. waited has documented Riplinger's divorces. They are biographical data. Some keep removing that info here because they don't want the info known for fear it may smear their beloved teacher. Are you a KJO, Sean Hoyland? ### —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.147.62.193 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 September 2010

I added her birth name and date and linked to a copy of her marriage certificate as proof. That information and link was removed. This isn't responsible editing but removing pertinent information, apparently simply to obscure the truth about Riplinger. The person preventing this article from being complete should not be allowed to do so any further. (yeoberry@yahoo.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoberry (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your comment was removed. I have restored it to respond to your question here since you are on a dynamic IP. Please note the advice that was provided in the edit summary "If you would like to provide neutral, reliable sources, please do." Click on the highlighted words, read the policies and comply with them. Compliance is mandatory. Please also read the WP:BLP that defines what editors can and cannot do in articles and talk pages related to living people. Compliance is mandatory. The site you refer to is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It cannot be used and that is the end of the matter. This is not a negotation. Do not post it on this page or add it to the article. Now, since you asked me a question I will answer you. No, I am not KJO. I am absolutely 100% atheist and have zero interest whatsoever in the Bible, KJO or Gail Riplinger. My interest in this article is in ensuring that mandatory Wikipedia policies are followed and that Wikipedia isn't used as a battleground. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

¶ As the article now stands (April 2012) the only biographical data is that Gail Riplinger was born in 1947. Nothing else. Not her academic degrees or career, her non-religious books, her marriages (including the names - some of her previous books were written under the names of her previous marriages), etc. Supposedly this is to make the article "unbiased" - but in so doing it sweeps a LOT of negative info about Riplinger under the carpet. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any information that doesn't comply with the WP:BLP policy has to be removed immediately. Editors who don't comply with the policy are usually warned and then blocked if they repeatedly add information that doesn't comply. If there's information about the subject published by sources that qualify as WP:RS it can probably be included subject to there being consensus for its inclusion. If information hasn't been published by reliable sources it isn't relevant for Wikipedia. So, it's really up to editors who want to include content to make sure that they get the information from reliable sources. If it turns out that there isn't enough coverage of the subject by reliable sources, the article could be nominated for deletion. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

¶ If this article is supposed to be the bio and not contain comments (including really negative stuff) about her writings and her claims, then there ought to be ANOTHER Wiki article devoted to her books or her propaganda. Or at least a piece that will send people to eye opening material. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I added some important material, for example, what her degrees are in, place and date of birth and birth name, exact details of a controversy with leading KJV-onlyist D. A. Waite, all with full documentation. It was all removed, making this an incomplete and biased article simply for what it omits, making it sound as if her degrees are in a relevant field to Biblical history, etc. (email address removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoberry (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The material was removed because it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's mandatory policies regarding the biographies of living people. Please read WP:BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also, please check out WP:RS and WP:PSTS. We generally avoid primary sources, and pretty much never cite youtube videos. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have a Ph.D. in history. Avoiding primary sources is absolute stupidity. Primary sources are the best sources. I read the rules and I don't see that I'm violating them. I didn't see a prohibition against youtube videos and the only ones I used were primary sources, Riplinger and Waite proving that what is reported about them is accurate. It's called "verification". It's call "history". Since you apparently don't like history, why don't you simply stop editing history pages and leave them to those of us who want accurate information instead of this sham of a page that you've been militantly guarding.

Below is what the article should look like with responses to your totalitarian attempts to suppress the truth:

[edit]Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Yeoberry (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 1. There is no real, reliable article on G. A. Riplinger. The book that made the subject well-known was published as from "G. A. Riplinger" and would therefore be the name that a curious reader of the book would search looking for more information about the author. The page on "Gail Riplinger" is an unreliable stump, missing serious, pertinent information, poorly written, with undocumented material (such as accepting Riplinger's self-description from a self-published book without any other supportive documentation) and it should be deleted and the editor who has militantly maintained it as such should no longer be allowed to edit. For example, the "Gail Riplinger" article leaves the reader with the impression that Riplinger's education is in a relevant field of study. The editor who has been maintaining it has repeatedly deleted the facts that her degrees are in home economics and art and has simply accepted her own word that she has post-graduate study at Harvard, etc., and that she was a "professor" (when in fact she was only listed as an "instructor" at Kent State.) Therefore, the "Gail Riplinger" article that exists does not constitute a serious Biography of a Living Person and is highly misleading. I tried correcting it on several occasions but the editor engaged in a edit war and simply removed all my additions, returning it to its incomplete, misleading, stump condition. 2. I have not attacked the person (Riplinger). In fact, in my edition, I noted people who acclaimed her work, even citing that she was given an honorary doctorate -- again more pertinent information omitted from the "Gail Riplinger" article. I refrained from any editorializing, cited reliable, scholarly secondary sources and incontestable primary sources in the manner of the best historical scholarship. I have an accredited Ph.D. in history, have published scholarly articles on history (especially history of Christianity), and written a doctoral dissertation. I have some knowledge in this field and I believe I understand the controversy. The original editor of the "Gail Riplinger" page seems to be intent on leaving the casual reader with as little useful information about Riplinger as possible. 3. I have not been trying to create a "POV" page but have been trying to augment with the relevant facts, with full and verifiable documentation for every statement. I even supplied documentation for a statement the original article said it needed a citation for but what I supplied was still deleted. 4. The purpose of this page is to give the pertinent information about the subject. The original editor is apparently militantly committed to obscuring the facts and leaving the casual reader with incomplete and misleading impressions. Further, his article is poorly written, poorly structured, and even contains misspellings of American English (for an American subject) and misses basic facts both positive for Riplinger (such as the honorary doctorate) and very significant (such as the falling out with perhaps the leading KJV-only scholar in the world (D.A. Waite).) In no way does the "Gail Riplinger" page amount to a serious or generally complete treatment of the subject. Please delete the "Gail Riplinger" page and replace it with the "G. A. Riplinger" page and advise the editor of the "Gail Riplinger" page to cease from obstructing the improving of wikipedia pages by scholars in the field. Yeoberry (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)yeoberry@yahoo.comYeoberry (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Yeoberry (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Yeoberry (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is a tertiary source and as such relies on what is published in secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are not scholarly papers making inferences from primary sources. That is a concept that is sometimes hard for academics to grasp.--ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia also does not care about credentials at all. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, but we can verify the contents of secondary sources. Use of primary sources leads to original research, which opens the door to crackpot interpretation by individuals claiming to have degrees they do not really possess. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeoberry, you should also read WP:COI. If, for instance, you were a Doctor of Divinity and pastor with strong views on this subject, it would demonstrate "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." You should read WP:COI and determine if that is the case. It certainly appears to be. First Light (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comments on some of the sources.

• avpublications.org is an attack site. It is even disguised as the official .com site. It isn't even close to qualifying as a reliable source in an article covered by BLP. Please stop using it. I may ask for a filter to added to prevent it from being linked in Wikipedia if you continue.
• Who is Aletheia O'Brien and why do they qualify as a reliable source ? How is www.biblefortoday.org a reliable source and is the PDF a copyright violation ?
• How is the youtube video posted by an account called tesoclinc a) a reliable source and b) not a copyright violation ? Sean.hoyland - talk 21:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. Now you show how incredibly biased you are and why you shouldn't be editing. Facts are facts no matter where they come from. I used the official copy of a marriage certificate available at the avpublications.org site to verify Riplinger's original name (Gail Anne Ludwig), general birth date (October 1947), place (Columbus, Ohio), and the marriage that gave her her current last name (to Michael D. Riplinger at the age of 36). These are verified facts and just the kind of biographical details that belong in an article but which are conspicuously absent from your absurd stump article.

2. Who are you and why do you think you have a right to continue to suppress FACTS? Aletheia O'Brien has documented what she says are misrepresentations of Riplinger's autobiographical material, which, by the way, you've uncritically accepted, such as her academic credentials (supposedly working as a "professor" when the evidence is only that she was an "instructor.") You've simply accepted her own word from her self-published book and then you interfere with real scholars trying to report the truth. The pdf is available on line.

3. Again, facts are facts, regardless of the source. One youtube video is of D. A. Waite speaking about Riplinger. Another is of a debate with Riplinger and James White. They are primary sources which in real history is the best sources. They are incontestably verified and accurate. Since nothing is copied, there is no "copyright violation"!

The article you are guarding is poorly written, a stump, it uncritically repeats unverified material from a self-published book, and misses much significant material. It is that way because of your interference in an issue you are either too emotionally invested to be unbiased or simply because you are too ignorant as to understand what makes for a good biography generally and what is pertinent for this subject in particular. Either way, please revert to my latest edit; you can make some needed copy-editing if you'd like but other than that, you obviously lack the expertise to be making significant alterations. Yeoberry (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)yeoberryYeoberry (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Facts are facts, regardless of the source" - And that's why you shouldn't be editing here (until you learn better). Read WP:RS. We don't accept user-generated sources, nor user-generated copyright violations of non-academic sources. It's to ensure WP:Verifiability that we do not allow original research. Multiple people have explained this to you, and it is considered disruptive (not to mention rude) to continue to ignore the sundry and varied explanations of the same damn point everyone has given you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Again, the avpublications.org link is to a marriage certificate that simply verifies basic biographical material that should normally be a part of a biographical article. The youtube videos are of primary people verifiably saying what they are purported to say. As for verifiability, your absurd stump article uncritically accepts the biodata from her self-published book. There is no documentation that she actually did research at Harvard or Cornell or that she was a "professor" (rather than just an instructor). It's a shabby piece of work with little substance to it, intentionally with-holding pertinent information so as to leave the casual reader misinformed (like what Riplinger's degrees were in) and what little it does have is unsubstantiated. You've broken the wikipedia rules for using self-published material. Please recuse yourself from further editing of this article.Yeoberry (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

@Yeoberry: You need to calm down a bit, and stop demanding that editors you disagree with recuse themselves from editing this or any other article. You might profitably read up on some Wikipedia policies, such as WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, WP:BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PEOPLE and WP:NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. For better or worse, those are the rules of the road here, and if you keep trying to edit in opposition to them, it will not go well for you.

I haven't looked too deeply into the subject matter, but from reading the comments here and elsewhere, my impression is that the only editor involved here who is pushing a particular agenda is you. You seem to want this article to be something very particular, and say only what you want it to say, and your behavior in attempting to achieve that goal is confrontational and abrasive. If you continue in this manner, I predict that it will not long before you are blocked from editing because of it. I suggest you keep this in mind and adjust your behavior accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

@ Beyond My Ken, The article currently breaks the wikipedia rules for citing claims from self-published works. The claim that Riplinger has studied at Harvard and Cornell and served as a "professor" is all based on claims from Riplinger's own self-published blurbs. Those claims are contested by others, which I briefly gave the alternative but the editors removed my verifiable citation of alternative claims while retaining the unverified claims from self-published work. Besides that, the current article lacks basic biographical data and substantial facts about the subject, including highly positive ones, such as the fact of the honorary doctorate I documented but which the editors removed. What I produced as an alternative had verification for every claim with accurate citations, adequate to an academic level. What I want this article to be is an accurate and concise report on the subject. There's no reason to even want to be an editor of a "encyclopedia" that puts out rubbish like this present article and suppresses superior, substantial, verifiable ones. If you continue this policy, I predict the already dubious reputation of wikipedia will diminish further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoberry (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Yeoberry (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, here's my last recommendation to you: your rhetoric is currently dialed up to about 8 or 9. Dial it back to 2 or 3 at most. Make specific and practical suggestions about how the article can be improved, backed up with the kinds of sources you've been told (repeatedly) that this project prefers, and drop the generalized attacks on Wikipedia. We're all editors here, we know much better than you do the strengths and weaknesses of the place. Cassandra-like warnings of doom if you don't get your way carry little or no weight -- in fact, they strongly work against you, as you come off as something of a jerk.

If you take this advice, you may find that other editors will be more likely to work with you to improve the article. If you don't, you're just going to be tilting at windmills, and you'll probably be blocked before you know it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You're probably right about the rhetoric. But note that I not only suggested specific improvements, I made them repeatedly, adding specific, neutral information, such as month and general place of birth (Columbus, Ohio), her birth name; and then favorable information to the subject, such as the honorary doctorate, etc., all with verifiable documentation. The biographical information came from an official wedding certificate, produced by the state of Ohio. An editor freaked out because the wedding certificate is posted by what he calls an "attack site." I made the changes at least three times, only for them all to be deleted and the page to be returned to it's current status, both a virtual stump (with little real biographical information) and what little it does have is taken uncritically from a self-published source, in contravention of wikipedia's rules.

All of my statements were verified with good sources and I believe my brief article meet the standards of both good scholarship and journalism, which the current page do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoberry (talk • contribs) 15:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

You didn't answer my questions. Have another go.

1. The first one wasn't a question. It was a statement. avpublications.org is an attack site. Given the constraints imposed by the policy governing the biographies of living people it is not suitable for use here. Nothing on that site is suitable for use here. You cannot use it. It would be nice if you confirmed that you understand this but your understanding and agreement isn't necessary.
2. I asked "Who is Aletheia O'Brien and why do they qualify as a reliable source ? How is www.biblefortoday.org a reliable source and is the PDF a copyright violation ?" Answer the questions I asked. Answers are required in order to determine whether the content can be used. If you don't know the answers just say you don't know. I can rephrase it if it helps. What evidence exists that Aletheia O'Brien's information is reliable and notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia ? Just answering the question "Who is Aletheia O'Brien ?" would be a positive step.
3. I asked "How is the youtube video posted by an account called tesoclinc a) a reliable source and b) not a copyright violation ?" Again, answer these questions. And what is the basis of your statement Since nothing is copied, there is no "copyright violation" ? What exactly are we looking at in this youtube video ? What are these primary sources and who owns the copyright to them ? Copyright violation is illegal so you need to take this seriously. Where are the original versions of these shows that you wish to use published on youtube or elsewhere by the actual copyright owner ?

I agree that the article is in a poor state. That is probably something everyone can agree on but at the moment you are making it worse because you are not complying with basic policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

–I'm not sure that avpublications.org is "an attack site" and if you have any objective criteria to make that judgment. I'm not sure if you have any authority to assert that nothing (including a copy of an official state-issued marriage certificate) on that site can be used. All that I used from that site was the marriage certificate from whence I gleaned her original name and general place of birth (Columbus, Ohio). I consider the government of the state of Ohio to be the source of that.

– My statement about Aletheia O'Brien is only that she contests Riplinger's claim, in her self-published blurb to her book, to her academic credentials. Aletheia O'Brien is the author of a small book about Riplinger which is made available on-line by www.biblefortoday.org which I believe is headed up by D. A. Waite, the president of the Dean Burgen Society, probably the most prominent and academically respectable King James Version organization in the USA.

–because nothing is copied. It's linked. Not copied. There can't be a "copyright violation" where there is no copying. There are two youtube videos linked: (1) of D. A. Waite saying what he is claimed to be saying regarding Riplinger (thus giving evidence of the "controversy" the current version of the page says is needed); (2) of a debate between Riplinger and James White. This is the only debate of Riplinger that I'm aware of on-line.Yeoberry (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

–You've made this statement repeatedly but not once have you verifiably quoted from the wikipedia rules showing that I've violated any of them nor have you removed the claims about Riplinger's academic credentials that appear to be copied verbatim from her self-published book, which is, in fact, a violation of wikipedia rules for BLP.Yeoberry (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeoberry, I notice that your Youtube advocacy against Riplinger uses much the same attitude, attack sites for sources, and personal attacks against her (loudly proclaiming her marriage and divorce status for example). It really would help you to read all of Wikipedia's notable policies, which several people have already linked to, and to understand that this isn't supposed to be the free-for-all that exists on Youtube. We really do have policies, guidelines, and rules to protect the rights of individuals in their articles (WP:BLP), and we require high quality Reliable Sources. First Light (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeoberry, perhaps I didn't provide enough context for the copyright questions. Please review Wikipedia:Youtube#Restrictions_on_linking and Contributory_copyright_infringement#Contributory_liability, then re-read my point 3 and try to answer the questions. It should be clearer why I am asking these questions about the material in the video once you have read the background material. Consider a simple example. Let's say I am a fan of an HBO show. I make a compilation video of segments from the show and upload it to youtube without permission from HBO. That is a copyright violation. If a Wikipedia editor then links to that video, that is contributory copyright infringement. If a Wikipedia editor links to the shows published by HBO, the copyright owner, on their site, or on their official channel in youtube, that is not a copyright violation. I hope that is clearer. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

– Ok, maybe it would help if you would actually watch the videos you've rejected. The one of D. A. Waite does not appear it could be copyrighted, since it is Waite commenting in what appears to be in an informal setting. The other is, I believe, the product of Alpha and Omega Ministries and if it is copyrighted they are the owners of the copyright. And I note you've consistently refused to deal with the FACT that the page still retains uncritically copied biographical material from a self-published source. Please don't respond to me about wikipedia's rules until you seriously deal with the breach of rules that is on the page now.Yeoberry (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I watched the video of course. It didn't help. That is why I asked you for information. And to be clear, as I said, I am only asking about the youtube video posted by an account called tesoclinc. Each source will need to be examined, step by step. This is just the beginning. Your answer that it "does not appear it could be copyrighted, since it is Waite commenting in what appears to be in an informal setting." doesn't help. From your answer it appears that you don't know anything about the source or who owns it but the article content you added, citing this source, said On July 22, 2009, Waite publicly exposed Riplinger at his annual Bible Conference, accusing her of "lying". This implies that you know that this source is related to that event. But there isn't evidence of that. This is not the kind of source Wikipedia's uses. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. I have deleted some unsourced biographical information. If there is more unsourced information you think should be deleted, just delete it. Also, keep working on improving your attitude towards the editors here who are trying to help you. Everyone has been pretty nice to you so far, but that could change. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

– @First Light, that's false. First, no one has cited to me a verifiable rule that youtube videos are not allowed as sources. Second, it appears from the poorly-chosen title to the one featuring D. A. Waite, that it is intended to "attack" Waite, not Riplinger but since it is a verbatim quote of Waite regarding Riplinger, without any commentary, it is a good source; the video of Riplinger debating White is not an "attack site" by any means but, I believe, the official production of Alpha and Omega Ministries (White's organization) that does not allow commentary under the videos. They are both primary sources that would be perfectable acceptable in academia and journalism.

If you were really concerned about the wikipedia policies, you would have already taken down the biographical claims about Riplinger that appear to be copied verbatim from Riplinger's self-published book. I noted, when I read the rules, that such a source is forbidden. You've been repeatedly informed of that and shown no concern whatsoever. For whatever reason -- perhaps just personal pique -- you and another editor or two have decided to resist every change and addition I've made to the article, claiming violations of mine you can't prove and turning a blind eye to the violations that are clearly on the page. Don't militantly guard this sham of a page and claim self-righteously to "require high quality." This page, as it exists, is evidence of the level of quality you require. Yeoberry (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeoberry, if you had read my comment, you would have seen that I wasn't talking about linking to Youtube videos, whether yours or someone else's, but about your campaign of attack against Riplinger on Youtube. If you think that a particular Youtube video meets WP:RS, which would mean it was published by a neutral third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, then you should post a note at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. As far as I can tell, the video you linked to is from a partisan religious radio show. Others also support not including that as a reliable source. If you disagree, take it up at the noticeboard that I linked. It is also a WP:Primary Source, which is fine for your Youtube campaign, but not for Wikipedia, where "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." Wikipedia isn't academia, nor is it Youtube. Both of those worlds have different policies and guidelines. This here is Wikipedia. You need to learn how things are done here. Please also see WP:BATTLEGROUND, which you are repeatedly violating: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Again, you can get by with that on Youtube and from the pulpit, but this is not youtube, it is Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

–Hi First Light, This is getting tedious. The two youtube videos are of the parties themselves speaking, without any interpretation whatsoever. It's therefore a perfect source. And, again, the fact that you let stand the clear violation of wikipedia's policy against uncritical acceptance of material from a self-published source shows how serious you are about standards. There's no ideological battle on my part. I tried repeatedly to put up a fully verified, sound, concise, fair article about the subject and was prevented by editors who allow to stand this stump article that clearly violates wikipedia guidelines. That's the reality. Yeoberry (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, if you disagree with consensus here, you can take it elsewhere. In the case of use of sources, and whether this is the rare instance where a primary source is appropriate, there is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Note: I'm trying to help you here. I don't have a vested interested in the subject of this article — I never heard of her before I noticed her being attacked. One of the things I watch out for on WP is violations of WP:BLP, and people coming to Wikipedia for their own purpose, to continue a vendetta that they are already carrying on in places like Youtube. I have a feeling none of the other editors in this discussion, except for you, are carrying a previous (conflict) interest in portraying the subject in a particular way. You're right, it does get tedious at times, especially when you see the same pattern repeating over and over again on different articles. First Light (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

• In line with talk page guidelines, I have changed the section header to be more neutral and descriptive. The header seems to have changed a number of times, which is disruptive and makes the discussion more difficult to link to from elsewhere. Please leave the header as it is now, and do not change it again. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeoberry, I'm Dennis, an admin here that has zero interest in this article and I didn't even bother looking at it. I did look at this talk page, however. A number of good people have tried to help you but you have been rather obstinate. There is an essay you might should read, it refers to a number of policies at Wikipedia regarding behavior. It is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I was going to leave a longer, more poetic bit of prose on your user talk page, but the more I read here, the less hope I had that it would have a positive effect. Let me break it down for you: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with policies based on consensus. It is fairly easy for me to see that the bulk of the editors on this page have a very good bead on what that consensus is, and have tried to explain it to you fairly, accurately, and rather patiently. You have instead been insulting and demeaning at every turn. If you want to participate, please do and we are glad to have you, but you are expected to conform to the same behavior as the rest of us mortals. If you continue to edit in a tendentious way, you are likely to be blocked from editing at all. There is nothing wrong with vigorous discussion, but there is with insults and a refusal to listen to reason. It is disruptive and will not be tolerated. I ask for patience by everyone here as he is a new editor but if this get worse, everyone should feel free to ping me. I hate to introduce myself with a warning, but I have no choice here. You need to take a more humble and inquisitive attitude, and allow these good people to help you learn how we do things, and seek compromise. You get more flies with honey than vinegar, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

– Hi Dennis, The article in question is in very poor condition, with little biographical material and what little biographical material it does have repeats uncritically from a self-published source. I tried repeatedly to put up a fully verified, sound, concise, fair article about the subject and was prevented by editors who allow to stand this stump article that clearly violates wikipedia guidelines. That's the reality. Yeoberry (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

As time permits I'll be listing the sources that have a shot of being considered reliable. All of them are problematic. However, we're well out on the WP:FRINGE here and I think this is about the best that we're going to do. That said, it may not be good enough to keep the article. Comments are invited. GaramondLethe 18:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Professor Gerhard Pfandl comments that Riplinger errs in NABV when describing newer biblical translations such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the New International Version (NIV) as denying the divinity of Christ by substituting "Lord Jesus" for "Lord Jesus Christ". While the phrase is used less often (more than 80 times in the textus receptus versus 36 in the RSV and 60 each in the NIV and earlier Greek texts), Pfandl argues that cannot be taken as an argument against divinity, and that in some cases (such as translations of John 1:18) newer translations make a stronger and clearer argument for divinity than the KJV. ^[1] [It's a vanity press, but because this is an edited collection I think I can make the argument that Pfandl is not self-publishing.]

• An extensive review of NABV in Cornerstone magazine, including biographical information. The url is a transcription, not the source itself.^[2]

• And here now is the entirety of the relevant material (specifically mentioning her, and responses that are specifically about her) from the Christianity Today article, which appears to be the only truly reliable source that gives Riplinger more than a mere mention:

About ten years ago, a young student asked Gail Riplinger, then an architecture professor at Kent State University, whether Isaiah 14:12 refers to Lucifer or Jesus Christ. Riplinger compared their bibles. What her King James translation rendered "Lucifer, son of the morning," the student's New American Standard Version rendered as "morning star," which also occurs in the New Testament as a reference to Jesus Christ.

This puzzling situation led Riplinger on a personal quest. For six years, she collected word-for-word contrasts and comparisons between the King James and newer versions. "The new versions give a picture of the widening apostasy," asserts Riplinger in her book New Age Bible Versions.

Riplinger's book, which was published in 1993 and has 100,000 copies in circulation, has itself prompted vigorous rebuttal from many quarters. Christian apologist James R. White, in his book The King James Only Controversy, dismisses Riplinger's work as "a plethora of out-of-context citations and edited quotations." White says many new-translation opponents are unnecessarily disrupting churches around the country.^[3]

• David Cloud's review^[4] in O Timothy magazine. If OT is effectively Cloud's personal musings then this is obviously not reliable. Based on the single complete issue I've been able to find, this is likely but not certain. Note that the url points to a revised version of the article.

• S. E. Schnaiter's review^[5] in the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. This is currently used in the article.

• Robert L. Thomas's review.^[6] This was in a previous version of the article and no good reason was provided for removing it.

• A solid piece of mainstream scholarship^[7] I managed to overlook.

I do not want to derail what your doing but there seems to be more sources for what the author is known for; the book New Age Bible Versions. It looks like there may have once been an article for New Age Bible Versions. Probably too late, the Riplinger article may have a tough time staying alive but could be more notability for an article on the book, which would cover the author a bit. Just a thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Age_Bible_Versions&redirect=no

An academic source, but not independent. It's Baptist.

• http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1997/schrev.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basileias (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 December 2012‎ (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Basileias. That cite is in the article already, but it should be added to this list as well for sake of completeness. Should get to that later this evening. GaramondLethe 23:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm in the process of roughing out a section on Riplinger's academic carreer here.[1] Before I continue what is turning out to be a major rewrite, I'd like to get a few opinions (posted here, please) as to whether or not this project is viable. Thanks, GaramondLethe 09:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would stick with the details of her academic career and leave out the details of her marriage career. While the latter seems overly important to her attacker (Yeoberry) on Youtube and other forums, I don't believe I would normally see that in an article about an academic. First Light (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The only (modest) difficulty with that is explaining why her academic work is done under a name that is different than her birth name and her current name. But I think you're right — why don't I punt on that and leave that explanation to a "Personal Life" section to be written later. GaramondLethe 18:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't feel that the details of an academic's personal life are at all relevant, especially when you see those details used to attack her on other websites. WP:UNDUE is probably the only way to justify my opinion, but there it is. I also appreciate that this article now has some neutral editors working on it, since it had turned into an attack page, and will likely be less involved in the details. First Light (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

With any other article I think you'd have an open-and-shut case, and even here I definitely think the burden is on me to show why the article should include any personal information at all. It's certainly one of the more challenging articles I've tried to work on. GaramondLethe 19:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

We provide some details of a subject's personal life in almost every biography article of any size on Wikipedia, if the information is available and properly sourced, and I see no reason that academics shouldn't be treated in the same way. Of course, it must be within WP:BLP guidelines, and WP:WEIGHT can be an issue too - such information should not become the focus of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Commencement programs are primary sources -- we would need to find a secondary source saying that the factoids are "notable" with regard to the person. That is what WP:RS pretty much requires. Also using primary sources in this manner may also constitute WP:OR as well. We should stick to what others have reported in proper publications. Collect (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

First, WP:RS isn't quite that strict. WP:PRIMARY says that primary sources are allowed if used carefully. However, in this case I'm using both. Here's the problem and my best solution:

O'Brien's work is an anti-Riplinger polemic that in normal circumstances wouldn't be considered as a reliable source at all. However, when she sticks to collecting biographical facts I've found her research to be meticulous, and so (with a great deal of care and caution) I am using her as a source for only unadorned biographical facts. She's also the only remotely reliable source for most of this information (as Riplinger has made a conscious — and rational — decision to not document her past).

The best solution I've come up with so far is

1. Stating in the notes that O'Brien is anti-Riplinger

A lot of opinion going around about what's a "curate's egg" and what is a "polemic." One could be of the opinion that the Bill of Rights is a polemic about liberty against Great Britain. Who cares? It's factual, it gives informative data about a subject, and is backed up by sources. This is why Wikipedia gets all wrapped up around itself and will never quite be what its originators perhaps wanted it to be. If you want to decide what to use based on what YOU FEEL is this or that, stop wondering why this article never goes where it may need to go. Really, it should all go into the trash bin. Very few would probably miss it! ### — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.168.248 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

1. Citing O'Brien only for biographical facts, and
2. Citing the primary sources used by O'Brien as well in order to demonstrate that, so far as these particular facts are concerned, O'Brien can be trusted.

I understand this might not be enough, and I definitely want several more-experienced editors looking over my shoulder on this one.

GaramondLethe 21:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Collect's interpretation regarding using proper sources, and neutral ones, that support the idea that her marriage and divorce details should be covered as being relevant. An anti-Riplinger polemic, even if the facts might be correct, still doesn't justify giving it the weight that you and Yeoberry seem to think it deserves. First Light (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the consensus is going to be to disallow O'Brien. Fair enough—her work is a bit of a curate's egg. That being the case I think there are enough reliable sources here for an article on New Age Bible Verses, but probably not for Gail Riplinger herself. I'll keep working within the context of this article for now and see where it goes.

Thanks for the comments—they are appreciated. GaramondLethe 01:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

"This article has multiple issues." Yes, and little can be done about that. She has writen on religious matters. Debate in the field encourages personal attacks. A merger of this article with the King James Only movement article is not welcome there, because her coverage is already adequate (similar to that of others). A previous debate over deletion of this article was inconclusive.

• Can't fix it.
• Can't merge it.
• Can't delete it.
• Gotta live with a problem article?

172.249.8.109 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Toss this article into the trash. Riplinger doesn't deserve the attention she's receiving from it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.168.248 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article has a biased tone, appearing to be written by a supporter of Riplinger. Suggest updating and editing so that the tone of this article is more objective. It needs to be written so that both sides of the controversy surrounding Riplinger are fairly addressed. DollyArtist2013 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article is obviously NOT a supporter of Riplinger. The article is an attack on her view. I agree it should be more objective. There are many sources debunking the author's sources, in her defence. 35.129.171.37 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply