Talk:D. James Kennedy

Wikipedia bias

Wikipedia's general anti-Christian bias is really really showing in this talk discussion. It is amazing how extremely biased certain of the discussion participants are. That someone who writes something called "Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse" is in and off itself proof that the person is completely totally and utterly biased and completely unreliable source for anything about the creation vs evolution vs ID issue. If Forrest identifies ID and Creationism then that says more about Forrest then it does about ID. The very fact that one of the most prominent Creationist organisations differentiates it self from the ID movement proves that they are not the same: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement. Of course Forrest's et al's attack on ID and Creationism is motivated by their religious bias, which is certainly a two-way street, despite some people's insistence that only Creationists can ever be biased. If such people can be used as sources on Wikipedia then the problem is Wikipedia's standards for sources. Kristian Joensen 19:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That article doesn't prove they aren't the same; in fact, that article goes out of its way to say that ID is a flawed version of creationism because it doesn't mention God, and instead it's dressed up in scientific terms. The article explicitly states that ID is a good way to introduce people to creationism.

I don't see anybody claiming that ID and creationism are exactly equal, but they do have a large intersection, which makes it easy to equate them. It's a fact that many creationists embrace ID. While creationists certainly aren't all ID-ers, available evidence suggests that most ID-ers are creationists.

But that's neither here nor there with respect to Kennedy. The arguments above aren't so much about whether ID equates to creationism as whether Kennedy can be described as an adherant to ID. Wikipedia has pretty straightforward standards for sources: they must be verifiable and reliable. =Axlq 14:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Kennedy "self-identified" as a Creationist, not an IDer

As per the arguments made in regards to Midge Potts and Senator Craig (and many others), Wikipedia's policy on "self-identity" is of prime importance and any sort of "deductive reasoning" regarding the alleged "evidence" that he supports ID is baseless. Jinxmchue 00:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There's distinction without a difference. Odd nature 00:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The distinction is that Dr. Kennedy was not GLBT, which is the only group of people to which "self-identity" becomes a factor in what they are described as on Wikipedia. Christians "self-identifying" as Creationists? Whites "self-identifying" as blacks? Mentally unbalanced people "self-identifying" as Jesus Christ? Forget it! Absolutely ZERO Wikipedia articles would be changed to reflect those peoples' "self-identities" and if someone did try to change articles in that manner, they'd be deemed "vandals," warned and most likely blocked. Jinxmchue 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please link to this Wikipedia:Self-Identification policy, i've never seen it before. Homestarmy 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's at WP:MOS, specifically at WP:ID. I actually over-stated what it is. It's not actually a policy, but a non-binding guideline. Of course, the way people are treating it over on the Midge Potts article, you'd think it was a binding policy. Jinxmchue 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose reminding you that WP:MOS is not policy, but a guideline will make any difference to you. But it does not trump policy like WP:V and WP:NPOV. As long as a WP:RS source establishes that Kennedy is viewed by significant quarters as a ID proponent then mentioning this alongside his self-identification is supported by WP:NPOV. Odd nature 00:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating that certain people - if notable - claim he was a supporter of ID is fine, but making it seem like he outright claimed to support ID (as has been done in this article) is dishonesty of the grossest form. Jinxmchue 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

<RI>Creationism=ID and vice versa. Not sure what you're trying to say? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. Jinxmchue 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of perspective. They are the same. Odd nature seems to agree. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure is. The perspective I hold takes everything into account and sees the major differences between Creationism and ID. Your perspective doesn't. For example, I see that ID does not follow the biblical account of Creation (i.e. the universe and all life created "as-is" in 6 literal days). That's quite enough to strongly distinguish it from Creationism. Jinxmchue 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly, silly Orangemarlin, I see you've continued believing everything the so-called "reliable sources" have been telling you about Creationism and ID. But anyway, it really doesn't matter here whether Creationism=ID or not, (Even just typing that equality statement as an example makes me laugh at the absurdity of it, hah! :D ) The guy is on record as supporting the fundamental principles that ID is composed of, and his statements align almost exactly with the definition in the Intelligent Design article, (Minus the negative stuff, of course) right down to going into a Teleological argument. How can his statements in the Truths that Transform episodes mentioned previously possibly be interpreted as not supporting ID? Homestarmy 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That a "reliable source" is about someone's claim about someone or other does not necessarily make it absolutely true. As I have already said, you can state in the article that some people claim that Kennedy was a supporter of ID, but there is absolutely zero direct evidence that Kennedy actually supported it. Talking about the controversy regarding questioning evolution or selling a couple of books about the controversy does not support make. Neither do the claims of people with a vested interest in being biased against Dr. Kennedy. Jinxmchue 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Are people just not interested in this anymore or are my responses sound? If discussion about this is over, I will make the appropriate changes to the article. Jinxmchue 23:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then. I've gone ahead and altered the section. It retains material on ID, but makes it clarifies that it's not obvious that he outright stated support for ID. Jinxmchue 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Even though the subject is recently deceased, his estate can still sue for libel, so until his estate is settled, WP:BLP still applies. I added the template back to the page, just as a reminder. Also, no, ID and Creationism are not the same thing. - Crockspot 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me these people are more concerned with insulting Midge Potts regarding the pronoun usage in his article than they are with insulting Dr. Kennedy (when he was alive) and his family regarding the claim of his supporting ID. Jinxmchue 23:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How would we know if the estate has been settled? Homestarmy 11:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding Barbara Forrest's statement about Kennedy

This reference raises a question about sources: if anyone who some consider notable and an expert on an issue claims something about someone else, is that absolute proof that the claim is absolutely true? Another example comes to mind: Republicans-in-name-only (RINOs). If someone like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter - both of whom obviously are notable and are considered by many to be experts on politics (save your jokes and asinine comments, please) - calls a liberal Republican senator a RINO, is that absolute proof that the senator actually is a Democrat? Jinxmchue 02:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Forrest was not only accepted in a federal court as an expert witness on the topic of ID, her testimony for the plaitiffs in the Dover trial was cited liberally by the judge in his ruling in their favor. Her insight on ID is widely regarded as reliable and accurate within academic and legal circles and oft cited. Other sources supporting her view of Kennedy will be added if you think this source is insufficient. FeloniousMonk 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean her statements are true and factual. It only proves that she made them. In the absence of direct evidence from Kennedy himself, it should be stated in the article that Forrest claimed Kennedy was a supporter of ID. Jinxmchue 17:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the Coral Ridge ref supposedly about ID

This sermon (I could only get that page to work in IE) is given in the article as a reference that Kennedy supported ID, however in reviewing the video, I have to disagree with that. He talked about design and pointed to the findings of scientists, but definitely not in the same manner as IDers like Behe do. He mentioned Behe, but clearly made it a point to point out that Behe isn't a Creationist. If Kennedy supported ID as promoted by Behe, why would he make that distinction? Kennedy may have seen design in life and was interested in and supported the scientific findings of people like Behe, but that does not mean he supported ID. Kennedy's Creationist beliefs were quite different from what ID presents. They are two different conclusions based upon the same evidence. Jinxmchue 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Coral Ridge Ministries promotes and sells intelligent design books and DVDs"

I see exactly ONE and ONLY ONE video - ""Unlocking the Mystery of Life" (available in VHS or DVD) - that is actually about Intelligent Design and there are ABSOLUTELY ZERO books about ID in the reference provided. This does not justify the use of "books and DVDs." My edit is completely appropriate until someone can prove that anything else on that page is about ID. Jinxmchue 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Title is POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's taken directly from the references which you are reverting back. So apparently you think it's okay for the reference to be POV. Jinxmchue 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it woyuld seem that our beloved POV warrior be wrong. [2]. I see 2 DVD's and a CD, and I'm sure that if I wade through the 200 page of crap sold there I can find more. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was obvious. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV opinion. (Gosh, you're guilty of POV. Imagine that...) Wikipedia doesn't work on what's "obvious." It works on verifiable, reliable sources. You aren't a verifiable or reliable source. What you still lack is direct proof that Kennedy supported ID and you know it, which is likely why you (and others) are so wont to avoid discussing the issue. Jinxmchue 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's someone else stating something is "obvious" (or "clear[ly]") getting smacked down recently in another article. Jinxmchue 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd think any ID specific books would be really easy to find if they were there, and wouldn't require trawling through 200 pages of material.... Homestarmy 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Behe, Johnson, Wells and Dembski.[3],[4],[5],[6] – ornis⚙ 21:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... Kennedy... Kennedy... Kennedy... Nope, his name's not there. You've got interviews with IDers, but interviews don't automatically equate to the interviewer supporting the ideas of the interviewee, and you've got books of related interest because they oppose evolution. What you lack is any example that Kennedy himself outright stated support of ID. Your evidence of his support for ID is circumstantial at best and, if presented in a court of law, would be laughed at by the presiding judge. It's obvious (hey, if you guys use that, so can I) that Kennedy supported the research and findings of IDers and their opposition to evolution, but he came to quite a different conclusion. Jinxmchue 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What you lack is any example that Kennedy himself outright stated support of ID. We have a quote from the leading authority on the ID movement...oh, wait, we had this discussion before. And it was resolved. We came to the conclusion that your personal incredulity does not trump Wikipedia policy. Remember? Or maybe you remember the conversation we had a couple days ago where I reminded you of that fact. No? Guettarda 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept what Forrest said about him being included in the article as long as it's clearly represented as someone else's opinion of Kennedy, not as an absolute fact based on something Kennedy himself stated. It's got nothing to do with my "personal incredulity," which, by the way, YOU resolved on your own. I never was a part of resolving anything because of you and your little clique (to borrow someone else's word) of Wiki editors. Jinxmchue 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not the link that was given for a reference was it? I guess you people are a little lazy with your links. And "POV warrior" violates NPA (and no, you can't hide behind SPADE). I'll thank you to retract it. You and others are just as guilty of being "POV warriors" as you accuse me of being. Jinxmchue 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and wow. Four whole items out of hundreds and maybe even thousands of items. Weak. Jinxmchue 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the wikipedia entry on Intelligent_design? That Kennedy was a proponent of Intelligent Design is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. It's propagation BY HIM is ESTABLISHED by his lending his presence to, and his distributing of, the books and videos in support of it. Not to record that fact about him is an attempt to censor history. It is grammatically correct to say he sold books and DVD's about it, even if there were only a few books about creationism and one only DVD. 70.231.16.80 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"COMMON KNOWLEDGE" is not a reliable source, but since you're apparently new to Wikipedia, I'm sure you wouldn't know that. Have you read WP:RS or any other Wikipedia policies and guidelines on editing? As to what you think establishes his support of ID, it doesn't. Lacking any direct statement from Kennedy, the evidence presented is circumstantial at best, and there's plenty of evidence that while he did support the research and findings of IDers, he came to a much different conclusion about those things (i.e. Creationism). The article can certainly record the facts that he interviewed IDers and that his organization's website sells books and videos about ID, but it can only record those facts as they are. In absence of Kennedy himself stating "I support Intelligent Design," drawing conclusions based upon the evidence given is wrong. For example, see Sen. Larry Craig's article. Based on the evidence given about his behavior, he probably is gay or bisexual, but the article does not and cannot state with absolute certainty that he is gay or bisexual. It can state the facts of his behavior, but it can't draw conclusions from those facts. Jinxmchue 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If he PROPAGATED it, he was a PROPONENT of it. Those are two ways of saying the same thing. And since it is undisputed that Kennedy PROPAGATED it, it is a correct usage of the english language, to say he was a PROPONENT of it. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that only direct quotations of specifically used words, can be used. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.143.117 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's very much disputed whether or not he propagated ID. He propagated their research and findings, but not their conclusions. He took the evidence used it to back up his belief in a literal 6-day Creation as recorded in the Bible. He focused on the Bible. IDers focus on the evidence. Jinxmchue 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We need a "trial" system within wikipedia. And once an editor is found, in a precedent-setting analysis, to have "lied" at any time, or to have evidenced "logical-thought error" at any time, he needs to be permanently barred from Wikipedia. What dramatic improvement in quality articles, we would see, if that practice were adopted. 69.215.151.79 13:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that, eventually, every editor on Wikipedia would be banned with a such a policy, eventually, you're bound to say something illogical on Wikipedia. (Perhaps by accident) Homestarmy 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a sad day, if the consensus is that everyone who edits wikipedia is a liar and can't think straight, and that to eliminate them would mean there would be no editors left. I'm not talking about thinking at the level of genius, just thinking at the level of: "If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C". Even the mentally retarded can handle that level of thought. There's no excusing editors like Jinxmchue, who lie and don't follow basic logic. Deliberately dishonest editors don't belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should eliminate them after giving them a fair trial using a "common-law" jury system. 64.109.203.246 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We have our blocking policy and banning policy for dealing with disruption. In general, wiki-lawyering is considered a bad thing. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC filed

Seems like a content dispute based on refs. Just find the refs and silence this debate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please find refs where Kennedy outright stated "I support Intelligent Design" or something similar. You won't though, because he didn't. He interviewed IDers, but interviews don't automatically equate to support of IDers ideas. He supported their research and findings, but he used it to draw a different conclusion. That much is obvious from his interviews and sermons. (And I don't actually have to back that up. Saying "it's obvious" is proof enough. Just ask OrangeMarlin.) Jinxmchue 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. There's no valid basis for this content RFC, but it is suitable as evidence for a user conduct RFC on it's filer: It's another bogus misuse of process from someone with an established history (see: User_talk:Odd_nature#A_notice) of misusing process to silence and drive away opponents in order to gain an advantage in content disputes. More grist for the mill. Odd nature 23:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• RfC's are ALWAYS a valid way to attempt to settle a content dispute. Please start assuming a little good faith on Jinx's part. I am somewhat ignorant on the details of ID, but I do know it is not the same thing as Creationism. As I am ignorant, I am seeing a lot of ignorance (and hostility) displayed in this dispute. Everyone should stop with the personalizations, and focus on the content. From my limited perspective, I would say that calling the subject a proponent of ID in wikipedia's voice, basing that upon basically primary sources, is a synthesis to promote a position, in other words, original research, and not very correct original research to boot. - Crockspot 19:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the irony! Jinxmchue 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Double sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Loquacious as usual, I see. Are you ever going to actually add substantial material to the discussion, or just continue to rely on being able to subvert 3RR by having one or more other people on your side? Jinxmchue 01:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

After using his own testimony from the Truth's that Transform episodes clearly indicating his support for the main ideas behind Intelligent Design, I really don't understand how a more clear reference could possibly be found, even if it was Kennedy explicitly saying he supported Intelligent Design. After all, someone could make such a statement but actually espouse views compleatly incompatible with ID, so such a statement itself wouldn't be much better on its own than the TTT interviews I think. Homestarmy 01:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there are people who believe that extraterrestrials seeded our planet with life. They support the "main ideas" behind ID (e.g. design), too, but there's simply no possible, logical way you could say that they share the views of Kennedy. Jinxmchue 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That claim is a rhetorical tactic used by ID proponents to hide their motive and side step the First Amendment. No ID proponents actually believe in panspermia. They all are on the record that the designer is God. They use ID as a stalking horse for garden variety creationism, as the ID article describes. Odd nature 21:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Equating ID with Creationism (and calling it things like "intelligent design creationism") is a rhetorical tactic to falsely portray ID as a religious belief or a "trojan horse." Many, many people who subscribe to ID are not religious and don't ascribe any specific identity to the "intelligence" they theorize designed the first lifeform. Additionally, ID does not dismiss things like evolution of life from simple to complex or the earth being billions of years old. Finally, to claim that "no ID proponents actually believe in panspermia" is a false presumption (akin to saying "there are no atheists in foxholes") that lacks proof. Jinxmchue 18:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this semantics or is there a real question here? Dr. Kennedy believed in the Biblical 6-day creation account, which, I suppose, is a subset of intelligent design. Is the dispute over whether to call him a Biblical Creationist or an IDer? If so, I think the former is more specific, but both would be true. --B 21:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't put the cart before the horse. Creationism came before ID. Of course, neither is a "subset" of the other. They are quite different. If anything, ID is a "subset" of the theory of evolution. Jinxmchue 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's the question, he definitely did not believe in evolution. --B 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies the main problem. People with POV agendas are trying to equate ID with Creationism. In the most generic way, they are the same. Both have a being of immense intelligence who designed life. But a generic portrayal of both to make them the same is grossly dishonest. In fact, the generic portrayal is where the similarities end. ID doesn't claim to know who or what the designer is. Creationism does. ID doesn't say how powerful the designer is. Creationism does. ID doesn't discount things like the 4.5 billion year calculation for the Earth's age or simple lifeforms evolving into more complex ones. Creationism does. ID is not based upon the Bible. Creationism is. And on and on and on.

The second part of the problem is unequivocally calling Kennedy a supporter of ID based on the flimsiest of evidences. There is no direct statement from Kennedy himself that he supported ID. We have references about his interviews with IDers, but interviewing someone doesn't automatically mean sharing their ideas. We have references about his sermons, but actually watching his sermons doesn't bear out the claim that he supported ID. We have references about what the Coral Ridge website sells, but again, this is not proof that Kennedy himself believed in ID (and there are many, many times more materials on Creationism sold). Finally, we have references about what someone else said about Kennedy. In this case, the information should be included in the article in the form of "so-n-so claimed in an interview with such-n-such that Kennedy was a leading proponent of ID." It's not, however. Jinxmchue 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding (which is probably wrong) is that ID = {anything but atheistic evolution}, as opposed to being a single coherent theory. In other words, if person A believes that space aliens planted the first DNA kickstarting evolution, person B believes in the Biblical 6-day creation, and person C believes in theistic evolution, all three would believe in intelligent design. My understanding may be completely and totally wrong ... but I would bet it is more likely than not that if Dr. Kennedy or his ministry uses that term, that they are using it to mean what I described. Their actual view ... the subset of ID that they really believe ... is B. I could be wrong. --B 08:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize the theory of evolution had anything to do with theism or atheism (i.e. religion). If true, then isn't teaching evolution of either sort a violation of the First Amendment? If not, why not? Jinxmchue 17:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific theories have nothing to do with religion or atheism. "B" said many times "I could be wrong" and he is. On the other hand, ID has much to do with religion, because it resorts to supernatural explanations. I do agree that Kennedy shouldn't be classified as an ID supporter. I always thought he was more of a young-earth creationist who, like many other creationists, embrace ID as a means to wedge the teaching of creationism into science classes. =Axlq 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would contend, however, that "supernatural" does not equate to "religion." Religion is about systems of beliefs and faith. Stating that life appears designed or that an intelligence could have purposefully created life here is not a religion. It's a matter of, "This is what I see when I look at the evidence." Additionally, scientists who theorize about other dimensions that we cannot see or interact with are, by definition, dealing with the supernatural. Thus, supernatural things can be and are a welcome, non-controversial part of science. Jinxmchue 05:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, you need to read Intelligent Design. You haven't been citing sources, you are merely being disruptive. There is no cult that I know of that asserts that ID is a subset of evolution. Evolution means random processes resulted in the creation of first life, whereas ID means the exact opposite, that non-random process resulted in the creation of first life, i.e. "intelligence" was behind it. Kennedy ESTABLISHED himself as a proponent of ID, by promoting only people, and DVD's, that supported it, and by giving many sermons in support of it, and that opposed the theory of evolution. One need not state "I believe in intelligent design" to be cited as a proponent of it, one needs only to be on record as in support of it's tenets, which it is everywhere consistently publicly evidenced that he was - in fact, that was one his biggest issues - to PROMOTE the theory with his sermons, books, and videos which he produced and lent his appearance to. Not to record that fact about him would be an attempt to censor history. Deduction is everywhere permitted in Wikipedia. With such bias as you evidence, you are not competent to edit this article. 70.231.16.80 02:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. You claim I need to read the article about ID, but then you go and get the definition of evolution completely wrong. As I've read countless times, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life (which makes be wonder why evolutionists are so dead-set against someone suggesting an intelligence created life). In the simplest terms, evolution is about change over time. The article about evolution even states that evolution can be studied and understood without even getting into the issue about the creation of life. And as I've also read countless times, evolution - as it is theorized - isn't a "random process." In regards to Kennedy, his interviews with IDers clearly establish that he was a proponent of their research and findings, but only to the extent that, to him, those things supported the literal biblical account of Creation. Have you listened to his interviews or watched his sermons? A lot of them are available online. If you can, please point out to me exactly where he clearly stated support for ID - and I mean EXACTLY; i.e. providing an exact quote. As to "deduction," I will again point to the article about Senator Larry Craig. By your reasoning, he doesn't need to say "I am gay/bisexual" for the article to state unequivocally that he is gay or bisexual. But your reasoning is faulty and the article cannot state any such thing if there is no direct statement from Craig himself that he is gay or bisexual (and he has stated that he is not). Contrary to your assertion, deduction isn't allowed on Wikipedia. (Deduction is subjective and Wikipedia could get in a lot of legal trouble if it were allowed.) Unequivocally stating that Kennedy supported ID is rewriting history, just as stating Craig is gay would. You can cite what materials his website sold, but you cannot use that as proof he absolutely supported ID. You can cite what interviews he did, but you cannot use that as proof he absolutely supported ID. You can cite what other people thought of him, but you cannot use that as proof he absolutely supported ID. Jinxmchue 04:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't agreed with one thing that Jinx McHue has ever written (maybe once he said the sky was blue, but I doubt it). However he is right. Evolution says nothing about the creation of life. That's Abiogenesis. And randomness is one of several processes that drive evolution. the rest of McHues' comments. SSDD. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If Kennedy PROPAGATED ID (Intelligent Design), he was a PROPONENT of ID. Those are two ways of saying the same thing. And since it is undisputed that Kennedy PROGAGATED ID, it is a correct usage of the english language, to say he was PROPONENT of it. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that only direct quotations of specifically used words, can be used. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.143.117 (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"the Institute's Fellows are frequent Coral Ridge Ministries guest speakers"

This statement from the article needs an RS to back it up. (Or is it just "obvious" as well?) Jinxmchue 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it seems that those who are so quick to revert are wont to avoid discussion

Are they hoping that their refusal to participate in any meaningful way (i.e. something more substantial than "It was obvious" or "Double sigh") will ultimately result in their being able to claim there is "no consensus?" If so, that's a rather underhanded gaming of Wikipedia rules. If you refuse to discuss, then you should have no right to claim there was or was not a consensus. Jinxmchue 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert filed

Here. Jinxmchue 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Guettarda 18:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, isn't it? At least I'm actually trying to remedy the situation. You guys complain about me not being helpful in resolving conflicts. Well? Why not look at yourselves for once? Jinxmchue 12:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of cute personally. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If people can blow off these things so casually, what's the point of the Wikiquette alert page? Homestarmy 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert for a content dispute? Failure to reply to specious arguments isn't a violation of Wikiquette? That's utterly silly. Guettarda 02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I did an RfC for content dispute. This is about the failure of shoot-from-the-hip reverters (yeah, I made that word up - sue me) to participate in discussion about the content dispute. Jinxmchue 12:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Still don't have anything worthwhile to add? Jinxmchue 12:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Hi there. I saw the post on WP:WQA, so I looked over the discussion. To be honest, I'm not seeing hugely blatant personal attacks -- just a long content dispute with a few uncivil comments (ie "POV Warrior"). While that might be a case of SPADE, extra civility hasn't killed anyone. (Although long exchanges of pleasantries could in theory be painful). I also don't think this is a cabal. To me, it looks more like a consensus. If Jinxmchue thinks he has valid points that haven't been heard, than the RfC is the right direction. However, if that fails to attract users who support his point, I think he should consider dropping the matter (as he'd probably be going against the established consensus). --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The "established consensus" of 4 or 5 people who defend each other's edits to get around the 3RR. Jinxmchue 11:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Compare the treatment of Dominionism in the article to Intelligent Design

Dominionism:

He was considered a conservative evangelical minister who was often involved in political activities within the Christian right and has been identified as a leader of the Dominionism movement.

...

Kennedy has also hosted Christian Reconstructionists Rousas John Rushdoony and Gary North on his program. However, he denounced any attempts to link him to Reconstructionist movement as a McCarthyist technique of guilt by association, and that he does not approve of their theology. Dominionism represents the political theory which springs from Christian Reconstructionism. Frederick Clarkson argues that despite his denial, Kennedy meets the criteria for being a dominionist.

Intelligent Design:

Kennedy was a Young Earth Creationist and supporter of intelligent design...

See the difference? Dominionism: "...has been identified as a leader...", "...Clarkson argues... Kennedy meets the criteria...". ID: "Kennedy was a... supporter of intelligent design..."

Let me spell it out: lacking any direct statement or evidence from Kennedy of support for Dominionism (and having an outright denial of supporting Reconstructionists), the article uses language that makes it clear that it's other people who are saying he supported it. However, the article treats the issue of his support for ID as if it were a fact backed by a direct statement and/or non-circumstantial evidence, which is simply not true. Jinxmchue 03:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

add burial details to article

I'd like to add the following non-controversial edit to the Article's section Retirement and death Kennedy is buried at Lauderdale Memorial Park Cemetery in Ft. Lauderdale

Thx, JGHowes ^talk - 04:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! NCurse _work 15:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Request for Mediation?

This article has now been protected for almost a full month, and no progress seems to be taking place to resolve the question of how the article should address Kennedy's position on "Intelligent Design". That being the case, I'd like to propose a formal WP:RFM, JGHowes ^talk - 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's what it will take to end full protection, then that's what we ought to do, though quite frankly, having to do it on account of one user seems rather overboard. Homestarmy 02:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard that Jinxmchue has sworn off of the internet, so I wouldn't expect him to be involved here. - Crockspot 02:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

article now unprotected JGHowes ^talk - 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually....

The link given for the accredidation thing doesn't really support the statement, because all it does is link to the home page of the website, which of course doesn't mention every single unaccredited school on it. Perhaps a more direct link could be provided? Homestarmy 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The section was lifted in it's entirety from this site: http://www.coralridge.org/about_djk.htm . We need a better source and a rewrite. I did the whole school check thing but I believe the school is misnamed on his website. Once we find the actual name of the school, we can check with more authority. That site links all accredited institutions, so it is a valid source, if we have the name right.

P.S. His homepage is probably refering to the University of Chicago Graduate School of Theology. Or maybe not. Turtlescrubber 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell can't even get his own school name correct? Would you rather believe that Kennedy was that incompetent or believe that it was a different unaccredited school? Miles Naismith 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, the webmaster of his talk page who might have assumed that using the shorthand for the school is okay. Why does everyone have their claws out on this page? Turtlescrubber 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. We are going to state that he has a degree from an unaccredited institution just because you can't find the name of the school on the website of CHEA? What if the name of the school was garbled? What if the school is defunct, but was accredited when Kennedy attended? The latter seems likely, as I can find no "Chicago Graduate School of Theology" on Google; degree mills usually have websites. The man had a Ph.D. from NYU, which hardly fits the profile of someone who needs the flimsy credibility of a Master's degree from an unaccredited institution. You need to have a reference actually stating that the claim is true before making a statement like this, not just one that fails to prove it false. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The CHEA has a comprehensive list of accredited schools. CHEA doesn't list unaccredited schools. Simply put, those that aren't on the CHEA list are not accredited by any recognized agency.

Chicago Graduate School of Theology isn't listed. However, it is listed as an unaccredited institution here as well as on the Frad Watch Dog site. I think it's fair to say the school's non-accredited. That doesn't mean it's a degree mill; legitimate schools (especially theological schools) do exist that don't pursue accreditation. =Axlq 04:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That first link is just content reposted from the Wikipedia article List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, and I can't even tell what the second one is since much of it isn't in English, is it some sort of blog? there's a "by: diplomamills" thing at the bottom.... Homestarmy 05:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't in English because it's a Japanese web site that lists schools that don't have English names. Nevertheless, the following facts remain:

• Chichago Graduate School of Theology is an unaccredited institution.
• Non-accredited schools can be legitimate, and aren't necessarily degree mills.
• The school's accreditation status is irrelevant to this article, and doesn't need mentioning. Using the word "unaccredited" violates WP:NPOV as it serves no purpose than to belittle a school that may actually be legitimate, and by consequence belittle the subject of this article.

=Axlq 16:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't speak Japanese, could you give us a rough evaluation over whether the site in question is reliable? As to including it, I am inclined to argue that if it wasn't accredited then it would be POV not to mention a relevant detail about his degrees (although it might make more sense to simply mention it on the stub article about the school that Bluemoonlet helpfully made. At minimum if the school was unaccredited it should be mentioned in that article). JoshuaZ 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How reliable are these sources? What are their sources? I have yet to be convinced that CGST still exists. If it does not, then its inclusion in these lists may be based on the same faulty logic that we've already discussed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) My Japanese sucks, so I won't try. But that's beside the point. Let me try to explain this again. I have had this debate in another article in the past. In a nutshell: Use of the word "unaccredited" when referring to a school violates WP:NPOV. Why? Because the word is ambiguous. One should instead use one of the explicit possible meanings of the word:

• the school is legitimate but has never sought accreditation;
• the school was denied accreditation;
• the school is degree mill (accredited by an accreditation mill, or not)

Note that two out of three possibilities above are negative, which is why the word "unaccredited" often has negative connotations. Absent any source saying exactly which of the above possibilities applies to Chicago Graduate School of Theology, the word "unaccredited" in this case serves only to promote a derogatory POV. Furthermore, an article about the school might make mention of it, but an article about someone who went there? I don't see the logic or need for mentioning the school's accreditation status. =Axlq 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Axlq. The statement gives a negative connotation, and the source cited does not specifically back up the statement. Not sure why it keeps getting reverted back in. - Crockspot 18:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that Axlq puts it that way, it does seem like saying that Kennedy got a degree from an "unaccredited institution" doesn't really give that much clear information about why that matters in this case... Homestarmy 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I did the whole school check thing but I believe the school is misnamed on his website. Once we find the actual name of the school, we can check with more authority. That site links all accredited institutions, so it is a valid source, if we have the name right. P.S. His homepage is probably referring to the University of Chicago Graduate School of Theology. Or maybe not. Also, whoever called my edits pov should apologize. It's called checking your sources and using the talk page. Turtlescrubber 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the University of Chicago Divinity School? Because, if I received a degree from the school that is routinely ranked 1st in religious studies, I would probably remember it's name. Baegis 04:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it might have been a typo from a ghostwriter on his bio. Check the link. The name may be written in shorthand. That is why it wouldn't appear in the database search. I also did a google search on the institution (no results) and that is why I think the institutions name might have been falsely listed. Turtlescrubber 05:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a typo. Google searching on "Chicago Graduate School of Theology" -kennedy turned up several other people who have gone there. All I found were CV's, though, no website for the actual institution. My guess is that it's defunct. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The anti-POV warriors gorgeous babes will be here I assumein tight wet t-shirts right after the beer chugging contest in thethis morning. It'll get reverted to the long-standing consensus. Consensus will be to add their pictures to the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I object to your name-calling, OM. It is inappropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your new version is no less inappropriate.

Back to the encyclopedia: I did some checking on CGST and created an article. It was apparently founded in 1920 as Winona Lake School of Theology, and moved to Chicago in 1970. I can find no indication on the web that it still exists (thus its failure to appear on the CHEA website). The burden of proof is upon those who would add the statement that it was unaccredited at the time Kennedy attended. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty safe bet that any "graduate school" that picks up and moves across state lines and subsequently closes down is not going to be accredited. Just a hunch. Baegis 07:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the school is not accredited.

Bluemoonlet, you created an article on a school that seems to have gone *poof*? Unreal. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. I make no claim that it is accredited. I'm only asking that the statement be sourced. The fact that it today is not listed on an accreditation website tells us nothing about its status in the 1970s. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah bluemoonlet. Actually doing research and checking sources is something that is frowned upon around here. Instead, you should just assume you are right and then make snide comments. Turtlescrubber 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not help, TS. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreal. Just a hunch. 3rd grade. Turtlescrubber 13:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a mere hunch to state that the CHEA does not positively identify the graduate school in question as unaccredited, aren't there websites out there that track this sort of thing? I know there's a whole bunch of school articles which deal with the controversy surrounding diploma mills and whatnot, and surely their references do not begin and end with the CHEA. Homestarmy 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good edits Bluemoon. I can live with that, though I don't Coral Ridge Ministries makes a good source for anything, since they may be relying on inaccurate data. But it's the best we can do for biographies. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CHEA doesn't list defunct schools, so the lack of mention by CHEA is not by itself sufficient information. I'll see if I can track down a source for a lack of accreditation, we do need in this case better sourcing, but I'd be surprised if it were accredited. JoshuaZ 03:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea whether CGST was accredited or not, though I would point out that Kennedy most likely took the classes in order to fulfill an entrance requirement to NYU, and that NYU apparently accepted its validity. I would also point out that this detail is unmentioned in any secondary source. Why is it so important that WP mention it? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a POV issue/weight issue if we mention a degree that's from a non-accredited school in that it gives the degree extra legitimacy (I have no idea if NYU accepted the degree or not but giving how muddled this is I think we need a secondary source at minimum that says it was unaccredited to include it). JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One possibility (not sure yet if I recommend this) would be to drop mention of CGST. It's one thing to mention that someone's degrees were from an unaccredited institution (with the insinuation of diploma mill) if that's all they've got. "Dr." Kent Hovind comes to mind. But Kennedy's terminal degree was from NYU, and perhaps that's all we need to get into. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible solution for now at least until we find out more information about the school. JoshuaZ 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And as I explained in the section above this one, it's the insinuation of a diploma mill that we need to avoid in keeping with WP:NPOV. Some theological schools simply don't seek accreditation. Some are denied accreditation. Some are degree mills. We don't know which applies to the Chigaco Graduate School of Theology, so there's no point using the word "unaccredited" except to insinuate something negative. =Axlq 17:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WaPo made on mention of that degree in their obit. Coral Ridge isn't a reliable source. 129.15.163.78 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Several obits made mention of the CGST degree, but I would imagine that all of them simply used the Coral Ridge press release as their source. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Axlq is quite right. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Orange, was that last edit removing the "unaccredited" bit really vandalism? To me, that seems like a curious way to characterize that editor's position... Homestarmy 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OM even put a {{uw-delete2}} tag on the talk page of the IP address from which the edit came. Rather too quick on the draw to label something like that as vandalism, in my opinion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Verification of content needed for refs 28 and 29

Does the content actually show Kennedy supports ID? Jinxmchue 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And so do the other 3 refs for the same claim. Baegis 04:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Then, prove it. Additionally, the first two are pretty clear as to what the claims of the persons cited are (not that their claims equal fact). The last ref is weak as there actually isn't a lot of ID material available there and none of it directly involves Kennedy. Jinxmchue 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are they actually unclear or are they unclear because they do not satisfy your criteria? Baegis 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you not cite exactly what part(s) of the content of each proves Kennedy supported ID? Jinxmchue 05:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I just listened to #29 (http://www.coralridge.org./medialibrary.asp?mediaId=2144). Dr. Kennedy doesn't use the words "intelligent design". His main point is that "life is composed of machines" - trillions of machines. He claims that in Darwin's day, the cell was thought of as a simple black box - a piece of "microscopic jello" - with no internal components, but that is no longer thought to be the case. (I have no idea if that statement is correct - just that it's what he says.) He then concludes that because the cell is complex, it never could have come about on its own by naturalistic causes. So while he doesn't use the term "intelligent design", he advocates its essential points. --B (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

cut/paste

* [[Christian apologetics|Apologetics]]: Kennedy frequently claimed that if [[Christianity]] is not true then it is a massive [[fraud]] and [[hoax]] perpetrated by evil men bent on making the world a place where [[Christ]]'s commandment to 'Love thy neighbor' reigns supreme, which is the antithesis of the criminal mind, and hence the theory that Christianity is a fraud is entirely incompatible with logic and human nature.{{Fact|date=September 2007}} * [[Constitution Restoration Act]]: a bill promoted during the [[2005]] ''Confronting the Judicial War on Faith'' conference that sought to authorize Congress to impeach judges who fail to acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" and to limit the power of the federal judiciary to rule in religious liberty cases.{{Fact|date=September 2007}} * Kennedy sought to "reclaim America for Christ" in which government policies and laws would be consistent with evangelical Christianity. Many of his public messages on this topic focused on his assertion that the [[Founding Fathers of the United States]] were Christian and had intended to establish a Christian constitution.{{Fact|date=September 2007}} * Kennedy was a notable member of the [[Moral Majority]] political movement in the [[1970s]] and [[1980s]].{{Fact|date=September 2007}}

Moved from article to here pending references. Swarm Internationale (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Swarm's edit, could we work the Notable Issues and Views into the article? I thought about popping them into the criticism section, but it might be very difficult to incorporate these points into that section while adhering to NPOV. Is the section really that bad as it stands now? I wouldn't call it a trivia section. I suppose we could rewrite into an actual section. If nobody has any qualms with that, I will do this tomorrow. Baegis (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to be trivia. I removed the {{fact}} statements from this section per WP:Verifiability. Swarm Internationale (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rfc: Can statements challanged for a long time and not cited be removed on a biography? (CLOSED)

Thanks. Swarm Internationale (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To the POV warrior who keeps messing with what has been a fairly stable article over the past few weeks. Take your major changes to the talk page before you act on them. Wikipedia urges editors to be bold, not stupid. Bye bye, AGF. Baegis (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the policy. WP:Verifiability Swarm Internationale (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop drive by tagging articles. But really, it doesn't matter. I have provided refs for 3 of the 4 points and am working on the other. Move along and start POV pushing at some other articles. There are 2 million more, I'm sure you will find one. This RFC should be dismissed as well. Baegis (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for all of the "unwarranted" work. The article is better with references. Glad I could be of service. This RFC can be closed. Swarm Internationale (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, considering in the above section I expressed a desire to work on the section, I totally said it was unwarranted work. Hope I don't see you around! Baegis (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should have worked on this, and you ultimately did a fine job. Keeping disputed content in was clearly a violation of policy, though...which is what the Rfc was about. I'll avoid you for some time to cool down. (But good job, sincerely). Swarm Internationale (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone and NCSE as a reliable source on a religious figure? Give me a break

This is wikipedia, not wikan pedia. I'd revert, except I fear that G is an admin known to throw her clout around in edit disputes. Ra2007 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted anyway. I'd like to see an explaination on why these are reliable sources of obituaries and religious figures. Ra2007 (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Rolling Stone is a reliable source, and includes high quality journalism by serious journalists. NCSE is a reliable source. And please refrain from personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Electrical Engineering Times is a reliable source, too, on matters having to do with electrical engineering. It would not be a reliabe source on Gustave Solomon's singing abilities, though (though Solomon's singing abilities were reportedly very good). Ra2007 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the D. Jame Kennedy article. If you have complaints about sourcing on the Gustave Solomon article, you should discuss it there. Guettarda (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be obtuse. The analogy is so clear that a young person could understand it. The Rolling Stone is a fine magazine for Rock and Roll, and the NCSE is a fine organization if you want to know about evolutionism. But neither are known for their reliability on religious figures and their obituaries. Ra2007 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Obtuse? Kinda funny, after your totally off-topic comment...unless, of course, Electrical Engineering Times is known for its music journalism. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And the Rolling stone is known for its coverage of evangelists. Get it yet? Ra2007 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of obtuse, in describing Kennedy as a purely religious figure you appear to be unaware of the well sourced statements about his creationist and anti-evolution activities. Since he has taken a public position on science, the views of the scientific community are required for NPOV. Do you have some difficulty in understanding that? ... dave souza, talk 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so now creationism is not religious? Can't have it both ways now Dave. Furthermore, Kennedy was not a rock and roll star. (Gus Solomon actually released a record). And what does Rolling Stone have to do with Science or Creationism? Ra2007 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ID claims not to be religious (most of the time) and creation "science" claims to be scientific. His attacks on evolution are commentary of science. Etc. Guettarda (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Rolling Stone is an investigative journal that has won awards. NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest science organization on planet earth. Both reliable sources by any measure.--Filll (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE was being used as a source for an obituary, not for science. Wow. Ra2007 (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the validity of Rolling Stone (which I don't consider useful as a whole, but regardless of my personal opinion), the author of that article is Bob Moser. From other articles he has written [7], he would not seem to be an unbiased "investigative journalist", but, rather, someone with a rather passionate pro-Democrat bias. --B (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's like using Ann Coulter as a reference on the evolution article. These POV warriors really know how to game the system, that much is clear. Ra2007 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Ann Coulter isn't known for getting the facts right, and is known primarily for "shock" content. Are you seriously comparing Ann Coulter with Bob Moser? Guettarda (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think a reliable source is for a religious figure? A church document? Maybe their own writings only? What do you think is a reliable source for Hitler? His own claims about himself? About Stalin? His own propaganda? That is why we have NPOV. We discuss these things from all angles.--Filll (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I love this one "evolutionist propagandist organization". Not true, of course, but telling regarding Ra2007's POV. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not at all similar. Rolling Stone is a major magazine which has a history of investigative journalism and has editorial oversight and fact checking. This is distinct from an a book written by a pundit talking about a subject the pundit has no training or education in whatsoever. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How about any of the people listed at Christian evangelist scandals as reliable sources? How about Ted Haggard for example? Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker? How about Kent Hovind? How Pat Robertson who told the people of Dover, Delaware not to look to God for help after any disasters since they had turned their backs on God by voting out the school board members that cost them several million dollars by their obnoxious evil behavior? Look most of these people, including this gentleman that this article is about, appear to be cut from the same cloth. These people are the Christian version of the Taliban.--Filll (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How wonderfully open-minded of you. Surely Dr. Kennedy's views can be documented either through self-published sources (presumably he knows what he believes) or neutral sources, not left-wing attack pieces. --B (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So the American Association for the Advancement of Science is a left wing organization? The National Academy of Sciences is a left wing organization? And Ted Haggart and Kent Hovind are upstanding mainstream examples of reasonable people? Wow. You are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there. Good to know.--Filll (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I looked to see where the NCSE article was used. It was used to bolster the claim that he was a young earth creationist (along with several other sources) and to cite his phd and alma mater. That is inaccurate? What the heck? The only slightly negative thing in the NCSE article was the end sentence: "The show was denounced as "outrageous and shoddy" by the Anti-Defamation League, and Francis Collins, who was unwittingly interviewed for it, described it as "utterly misguided and inflammatory." which is just a quote of two others. So what? For this you call it a left wing group? Are you sure you don't want to retract that?--Filll (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said a thing about the NCSE article. I only expressed a concern with the Bob Moser piece given that his article is an attack piece and that other articles he have written obviously have a Democrat bias. There's obviously nothing wrong with the NCSE article. There is, however, something wrong with your Taliban comment. If you equate conservative Christians with the Taliban, then there really isn't any starting point for a discourse. Most conservative Christians, myself included, do not approve of Haggard, Baker, or Robertson (I've never heard of Hovind). --B (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well in my personal observation, most people who claim to be Christians, especially those who claim it the loudest and in the most angry fashion (and all of the "Christians" mentioned on this page are good examples), are not really Christians at all. I have had well over 10 arguments with such "Christians" who tell me that "love thy neighbor as thyself" is not part of the bible and was never said by Jesus. Really rational reasonable people...not...As they and scream and curse at me and tell me over and over how they want to kill all Catholics and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Presbyterians and Methodists and Lutherans and Atheists and Agnostics and Scientists and give me a big long list of who they hate and how much they hate them, I get a real good glimpse of what a demon from hell is like. So you can throw your lot in with these people. I choose not to. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is technically a Methodist and took Communion at a Methodist church this Christmas, I suppose these people you have argued with want to kill me. --B (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Methodists are definitely the "wrong" kind of sect to these people. I am surprised you dont know that. --Filll (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They also tell me they want to kill all homosexuals and often foreigners or minorities, especially those with darker skin. And then they tell me I am not allowed to disagree with them since every word out of their mouths is the word of God. Ah.... ok... Anyone have a straightjacket? What is amazing to me is that reasonable rational people do not stand up and tell these kooks to pound sand. Why give them money? Why follow these bigots and anti-intellectual ignorant hate-mongers? I know it feels good to hate; it is energizing, but really, do you think this is what Jesus would do?--Filll (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What denomination/organization/etc are the people you are referring to from? Do you mean "kill" literally or metaphorically (as in silence/stop from talking)? Did these conversations take place somewhere other than America? In my experience (southeastern United States), I'm having a hard time imagining very many people claiming to be Christians and wanting to kill someone. I suppose there are some white supremacist organizations that advocate such nonsense and some of them do claim to be based in Christianity, but I can't think of anyone else. I disagree with Pat Robertson on a number of levels (happy to discuss on user talk pages as it is getting well outside the topic) but I can't imagine even him or any of his followers advocating killing someone. I have an aunt that goes to the Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn nonsense all the time and she has never threatened me or anyone else, even when I have comfronted her about the errancy of her position. --B (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well glad to educate you a bit. Yes they exist. And many of them might easily be classified as "dominionists". If you were here with me, I would be glad to introduce you to some of them. And I mean literally kill, as in the death penalty, either administered by the state or street justice by vigilantes. --Filll (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

D. James Kennedy did not want anybody killed as far as I know, and that this discussion has turned into an anti-christian soap box is troubling, and is illustrative of the POV of those making such comparisons. The NCSE, I must agree, is not the best source for an obituary. And if there are other sources to back it up, no need for the NCSE anyway. What is the big deal? TableManners ^U·T·C 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that advocating tolerant behavior and using Jesus as an example is viewed as "anti-Christian". That is a good one. My father always used to tell me when I was growing up that the public would kill Jesus if he showed up again. I am positive that this would happen now, based on what I have seen. In fact, the people who would be most anxious to kill Jesus are those that call themselves "Christians", proudly and often (often shrieking it with rage at those who are their "enemies"). It is sad, but quite telling. If you espouse this sort of philosophy, you should ask yourself if you really are being a real Christian, or just following some sort of hatemongering bloodthirsty crowd. I think the answer is quite obvious. Just a thought...--Filll (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I think you missed the point. Too bad. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to restate your point, or are you trying to make a WP:POINT? TableManners ^U·T·C 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So, according to the logic espoused by B, we should basically get rid of any material in this article that paints Kennedy in an unflattering light, because they may have come from a "left-wing attack piece". If we applied this general idea to the whole of Wikipedia, we can...well, we will become just a bigger version of Conservapedia. Sounds simply divine. Baegis (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So, according to Baegis, we should call this liberalpedia and not wikipedia? Ra2007 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stunning, simply stunning. Baegis (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What is stunning is the apparently righteous indignation you're expressing. If you want to include critics from left wing critics, at least have the character to accurately describe the source material in the article. Ra2007 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ra, comment on the actions, not the person. Your insinuations about Baegis' "character" are totally unacceptable. Since you seem to have such a problem with basic issues of style, I would suggest reading our manual of style. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Reality has a liberal bias" Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Claims

So it is claimed in edit summaries that he never worked as a dance instructor (although I do not know why that is something to be ashamed of, but I studied years of dance myself), and that his ministry does not sell creationist books and videos. I am not an expert on the sources and materials, but let me look and see. Why so combative? What is wrong with being a young earth creationist if that is what you are? Why hide it? What is wrong with being a dance instructor? I am confused here.--Filll (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked his ministry's website and I found 3 creationist books in the first 6 pages of 27 pages of books. So how can it be said that his ministry does not sell creationist books? I am confused.--Filll (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the edit summaries reference WP:NOR? The dance instruction requested a citation, the fact that his web site sells stuff is benign, true, but original research. TableManners ^U·T·C 04:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well frankly his website is a reliable source for what he sells. Sorry. But it wasn't described in any of the references? I know I saw his career as a dance instructor in two references. Why the urge to delete stuff ? What are you hiding exactly?--Filll (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not see the reference to the dance instructor, but if you did, the better approach would simply be to add it to the uncited sentence. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you did not see this in the material you are capriciously deleting is quite telling. What are you trying to hide, exactly?--Filll (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be paranoid (Oh, yeah, I am part of an international conspiracy to hide the fact that D. James Kennedy danced). The sources were not deleted on the grounds that they were false, but on WP:RS and WP:NOR grounds. The fact tagged sentence had no cite. I have no idea what you think I am hiding, but it sounds conspiratorial. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what is going on. What do you think is a reliable source? Is Time magazine? The New York Times? The Christian Science Monitor? Salon Magazine? Nature journal? Scientific American? What suits your personal tastes? You know that we edit here by consensus don't you? You know you cannot dictate to others but have to convince them, right?--Filll (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick check of his obituaries in the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today all state that he used to be an Arthur Murray dance instructor. So you don't really know much about this gentleman, or you are covering something up because you think it looks bad somehow. Really, either way, you have no business editing this article, right?--Filll (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not seriously comparing Time, The New York Times, and The Christian Science Monitor to the NCSE, are you? Ah, doesn't matter. You and your friends clearly WP:OWN this article, and I am not an admin, so take it, it's yours. Off my watch list. (this response was to a drastically different version of the above [8]) TableManners ^U·T·C 05:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just add a reference to the sentence. This is not a discussion forum or a debate club. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not WP:OWN the article. I have not even edited, I do not think. I have not read it. I am just curious at why you are slashing away at the article, and removing any reference to creationism or to dance school. It just seems strange. Do you think being a creationist is a bad thing? Something to be hidden? I am puzzled. And I have no idea why you would slash away at the dance school reference, when I have now read 5 references that include it. I think I could get 100 or 200 references of this. And you doubt it somehow. You never even checked it. You never even read the references in the article that included it. And yet you were very anxious to get rid of it. It is curious...--Filll (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You win. Off the watch list. See you. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Violation of Three-revert rule?

Guettarda (talk · contribs) is an admin, and can apparently engage in multiple reversions per day (in excess of 3RR ). This is a power granted to admins, apparently, but I guess it may require an allegation of "bad faith", e.g., in her last edit summary:[9]

“ (what? you can't delete a source, say "the others are sufficient", and then stick in fact tags. Rv what really looks like a bad faith edit) ”

The fact tag was added to a sentence that did not have a reference removed. Your characterization is incorrect. Please undo your your last edit as you seem to be in violation of 3RR. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Or it each of the edits Guettarda made were reverting obvious vandalism to the article. Of course, since I also reverted once, perhaps you would like to accuse me of being a sock of someone else. Seems to be the next logical step in your above arguments. Baegis (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I did not violate the 3RR. Please do not make false accusations against people. It's rather bad manners. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you were admonished on your talk page, Guettarda. But looks like the pack is sticking together. Ra2007 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral opinions

Ra, would you please explain how your addition of the uncited descriptor "left wing critics" is consistent with NPOV? Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:spade. Do you object to critic, left-wing, or both? Ra2007 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What does WP:SPADE have to do with this? I think the appropriate policy is WP:NOR. The former applies to "calling it like you see it" when it comes to actions on Wikipedia. The latter applies to "calling it like you see it" in articles. Please refrain from adding editorial comments to articles. Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, do you object to critic, left-wing, or both? Ra2007 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOR? Guettarda (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my question? Or do you only demand that others answer yours? Ra2007 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your question, like your edits, indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. You will get your answer if you read our policy on original research, and far more importantly, you will learn about one of our core policies. Guettarda (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See below, and tell me which policy this violates....hahaha. Ra2007 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A vital component: good research

Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later. The Rolling Stone and NCSE are not high quality authoritative sources on D. James Kennedy. Ra2007 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is NOT the source. Rolling Stone is the publication. A column by Bob Moser is the source. The bias in his columns is obvious - I placed a link above to a list of them. I seriously doubt that he claims to be unbiased - most political columnists are biased one way or the other. A politically biased column, as opposed to a neutral obituary, neutral news article, neutral anything else, is worthless. It would be like sourcing an article about Virginia Tech on a column written by Bill Brill. (Note: that's COLUMN - I'm sure that Bob Moser or Bill Brill, when they write factual news articles, do a fine job of being neutral.) The article should be sourced from neutral sources or, in the case of purely demographic information or lists of what Dr. Kennedy believed, from self-published sources. (Presumably, he knows what he believes better than a columnist does.) If this were a news article or a piece of investigative journalism ... ok ... but it's not - it's a column. Nobody would deny that Dr. Kennedy believed that America was founded as a Christian nation, believed in the Biblical 6-day creation account, and was pro-life. But these beliefs need to be sourced reasonably, not with some guy flying off the handle about a vast Christian conspiracy. --B (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You raise a fair point, and probably sufficent point, to impeach the Bob Moser column...a point that does not require evaluation of Rolling Stone on the whole (though I don't see how Rolling Stone article or column on D. James Kennedy is even near the best and most reputable authoritative sources). Even so, I contend that WP:RS rules out the NCSE and Bob Moser/Rolling Stone as a reliable source On D. James Kennedy, except in a limited case to illustrate what the NCSE and/or Rolling Stone/Bob Moser think about D. James Kennedy, and then, in this second, limited, case, only if these views are identified as coming from the NCSE and/or Bob Moser/Rolling Stone in the text of the article. Ra2007 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a bit of misunderstanding here. I was under the impression that the sources did not have to be neutral for WP:NPOV. We can have biased sources, but the overall finished article has to have some positive some negative, or some on various sides of a contentious dispute or controversial issue. Leaving out one side and one set of sources with a view you do not like is definitely against the rules of WP, according to my understanding. Do I misunderstand? I doubt it. If I do, show me the regulation that says all sources must be biased one way, or all neutral. Thanks! --Filll (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be completely neutral and, in many cases can't be, but you can't take everything a biased source says at face value and report it as fact. Moser is being used to source "Many of his public messages on this topic focused on his assertion that the Founding Fathers of the United States were Christian and had intended to establish a Christian constitution." This statement should be easily able to be sourced with a neutral or self-published source. (Constitution should be changed to country, but that's a matter of semantics.) He had plenty of sermons about this and there was a DVD about Washington they were selling a year or so ago that set out to prove that he was a Christian. They did a piece not long before he died on Jefferson the main thesis of which was that even though he wasn't saved, Jefferson was very much pro-Christian and would not support the current interpretation of separation of church and state. This statement is obviously true for anyone who has ever watched/listened to Kennedy and should be able to be sourced elsewhere. This is not a valuative statement or anything embarrassing that his own ministry would deny. The problem is "He was considered a conservative evangelical minister who was often involved in political activities within the Christian right and has been identified as a leader of the Dominionism movement." This statement is based on Moser's conspiracy theory and it should not be reported as fact, any more than Hillary's claim of a vast right-wing conspiracy should be reported as fact. --B (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement should be easily able to be sourced with a neutral or self-published source. - A self-published source would not be a good idea - we are supposed to work from secondary or tertiary sources where available. As for a "neutral" source - we're supposed to work from reliable sources. Additional sourcing is fine, as is sourcing which disputes the assertion. But "neutrality" will always be a value judgment. As for the dominionist statement, (a) it's supported by four apparently independent sources, and (b) it doesn't say "Kennedy was a dominionist", it says "he was identified as one", which is the correct way to phrase it, since we are reporting what the sources have said, we aren't making a statement of fact. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose (read: know) you'd (read: article owners) be singing a different tune if one cited Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism critics of evolution and evolutionists at Evolution, NCSE, or the Creation-evolution controversy, even though a good chunk of that book discusses (read: with well researched footnotes) the problems with evolution, the tactics of evolutionists, etc., especially if Ann Coulter were not identified and rebutted in the article proper. Ra2007 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, this page is for discussion the D. James Kennedy article. It isn't the place for discussing your problems with sourcing on other articles. Please take your concerns to the appropriate talk page. Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, you do not get to prohibit the use of metaphors and examples, but I notice you attempt to do so only when it helps your side of the argument. Ra2007 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Metaphors? Interesting. Wouldn't have guessed that a string of personal attacks and some nonsense about Ann Coulter was a metaphor for anything except bad prose. You mean you had some point about this article in there? Hmmm. My apologies - I'm sure your English is far better than my command of whatever your native language is. Guettarda (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you not honesetly see the relevance of Ann Coulter to Filll's earlier response? Metaphor probably was not the best word. Ra2007 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I see plenty of personal attacks, which you really need to lay off. But "Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism critics of evolution and evolutionists" really isn't English. Guettarda (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about "Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism critiques, observations, and descriptions of evolution and evolutionists? Ra2007 (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So, the point is that certain sources, while high quality for some articles, are low quality for others. Ra2007 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why a US flag and a church is offensive

Please see Image_talk:D_James_Kennedy.jpg. Ra2007 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

External link, question

I'm not sure how to start a new thread, so this doesn't relate directly to the question. Would like to suggest an external link to a review of a Gary DeMar book published by Coral Ridge called "America's heritage" at http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/christianity-and-the-constitution.html. How does one get approval for such a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmarkets (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No "approval" is necessary, but things like that should follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's from a self-published website, it primarily concerns DeMar, and it seems to me that it doesn't qualify for inclusion here. See WP:LINKS for guidelines. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

BA degree

Anyone know his major for his undergraduate degree? History, maybe (speculation based on his use of history in sermons)? 68.83.72.162 (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Coral Ridge Hour still in production and televised

The statement "He [Kennedy] began Coral Ridge Ministries in 1974, which continues to produce the weekly religious television program, The Coral Ridge Hour..." is factually correct, as a quick check of the CRM website shows. The program is still televised, using Kennedy sermon reruns interspersed with additional content by current CRM spokespersons. Thus, CRM continues to produce and distribute the weekly program to various TV outlets.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Separate article about Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church

Because D. James Kennedy is deceased, I have created a separate Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church article, as the church is notable in its own right and now has a different senior minister.  JGHowes  ^talk 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

His parents were "United" Methodists?

The article here, in the subsection entitled "Early years and family", states that young Kennedy's parents were "United Methodists".
Within the context of his childhood that's impossible.
The "United Methodist" Church did not come into existence until 1968, while Kennedy was an adult, eight years after he started the Coral Ridge church.
Therefore his parents were simply "Methodists" during his early years.
Will anyone object if I make a change to the article?
Or will one or more other participants seek to engage in a burst of wikiquibbling, wikiquarreling, or wikinamecalling?
I wish not to appear overly cynical or suspicious.
However, I see that several of those hovering around this article and this talk page appear to have a strong tendency toward verbal schoolyard scuffling.
Any other thoughts?
Thanks.
DocRushing (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Too many refs

I suggest at least half of these references be pruned from the sixth paragraph of the "Apologetics and views" section: Kennedy did not believe in the fact that species evolved and disputed the theory of evolution by saying, “The two most notorious and blood-soaked political movements of the twentieth century, Nazism and Communism, both rejected God and were animated by the idea of evolution.” YoPienso (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D. James Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.truthinaction.org/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408203338/http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5936&abbr=cs_ to http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5936&abbr=cs_

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on D. James Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625144114/http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/center_for_christian_statesman.php to http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/center_for_christian_statesman.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821085942/http://www.wdac.com/news.php to http://www.wdac.com/news.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704181447/http://www.djameskennedy.org/media.aspx to http://www.djameskennedy.org/media.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018052406/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Land_letter to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Land_letter
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704181447/http://www.djameskennedy.org/media.aspx to http://www.djameskennedy.org/media.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on D. James Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726093015/http://www.coralridge.org/_catalogs/impact/CRM_ImpactNWsltr03-08.pdf to http://www.coralridge.org/_catalogs/impact/CRM_ImpactNWsltr03-08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726093101/http://www.coralridge.org/_catalogs/impact/CRM_ImpactNWsltr04-08.pdf to http://www.coralridge.org/_catalogs/impact/CRM_ImpactNWsltr04-08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on D. James Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070907142437/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-djkennedydead0905,0,4390768.story to http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-djkennedydead0905,0,4390768.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123172106/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-coralridge0118,0,7957788.story to http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-coralridge0118,0,7957788.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070907142437/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-djkennedydead0905,0,4390768.story to http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-djkennedydead0905,0,4390768.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826052128/http://www.coralridge.org/stationfinder/default.aspx to http://www.coralridge.org/stationfinder/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726093210/http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=2505 to http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=2505
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111227061658/http://www.truthinaction.org/index.php/resources to http://www.truthinaction.org/index.php/resources
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary.asp?mediaId=2144
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504081343/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4877_52.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4877_52.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726093416/http://www.coralridge.org/partnercentral/ministrynewsdetail.aspx?id=215 to http://www.coralridge.org/partnercentral/ministrynewsdetail.aspx?id=215
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726093344/http://www.coralridge.org/partnercentral/ministrynewsdetail.aspx?id=216 to http://www.coralridge.org/partnercentral/ministrynewsdetail.aspx?id=216

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)