Talk:Gail Riplinger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1.


Contents

[edit] Brooke Foss (B.F.) Westcott Vs William Wynn (W.W.) Westcott

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

Just as I suspected, ALL KJV/GAR defenders are not allowed any "positive" edits on this page. An example of "positive" is -She is smart. A negative comment is -She is a prostitute(THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE OR FALSE TO MAKE IT NEGATIVE). No moderators are keeping watch on this!! Everything in the previous paragraph by 67.142.130.19 are POV. ANYONE who looks at the handwritten letter by B.F. Westcott will undoubtly see the possible interpretation "W.W.Westcott"!!! There are only a few quotes directed at "WW" and they are footnoted. ALL other quotes are from B.F. Westcott!! She is pointing out things that New Agers and Modern Theologians have in common. These are the facts and according to Wikipedia rules YOU are to leave them unedited! NO NEGATIVE comments about LIVING PERSONS. If you want to bash her, go build your own web page!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguisticsclass-student (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, you just DON'T get IT. You REFUSE to get it. You'd rather protect your ignorance of the facts by not checking into the facts, because those facts could just very possibly pop your bubble and prove that your support of GAR is not what it should be. It doesn't matter to you people how many times we state that we have checked the facts, you keep accusing us of using POV, bias, bashing, etc. You just won't check into things the way we have. We can back everything we say about the claims of GAR. Your comment added earlier was not worded in an encyclopedic manner and it wasn't positive either. It just tried to cover for the lie GAR has made throughout her book against Anglican theologians Westcott and Hort. It doesn't matter if B.F. Westcott's signature resembles whatever someone thinks they might see when looking at it--B.F. Westcott and W.W. Westcott were not born and did not die at the same time--they are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE! Do you get it yet??? No, you enjoy vicious slander and that is why GAR's teachings, sadly, suit you. You just want to believe what you want to believe. A lot of people's sloppy signatures could resemble those of other people--so what?! That GAR thinks B.F.'s signature looks like it says W.W. is subjective but she uses it as if it proves fact. I have volume 2 of B.F.'s bio right here. Like GAR, you fail to mention the little lower-case T-appearing thing in between the two cursive characters that GAR imagines are W's. His son pointed out that he had sloppy handwriting, so no wonder "B.F." is illegible--no-brainer! GAR failed to say that the "Westcott" portion of his signature doesn't look like it says "Westcott" either--due to its illegibility. The entire signature looks more illegible (unreadable) than it looks like it says "W.W. Westcott." Looking at it, it is next to impossible to know what the signature says, except for his son explaining that the sloppy handwriting--which he says was difficult to read in most of Westcott's letters--was that of his father B.F. It doesn't look any more like it says "WW Westcott" than it looks like it says "B.F. Westcott." The point you are trying to make is pointless and you now it. You are here to stir up strife. If anything, your comments only reinforce GAR's dishonesty in using questionable information to try to prove a false fact that she has created and that sells her books. If GAR were actually just drawing parallels between WW and BF then she would not have made the bold statement that "Blavatsky mentions B.F. Westcott in some of her books." "Books" by the way, that GAR never gives titles or page numbers to so that her information can be verified. If B.F. Westcott was personally involved with Blavatsky in the occult, together as friends and closely acquainted with one another, then I'd want to know where I can go read about it in Blavatsky's book. But GAR has withheld such information and instead just makes a flat statement backed on nothing but hot air. The truth is, Blavatsky mentions W.W. Westcott, which has already been proven by obvious facts to be a different person. You rightly call yourself a "student" of Linguisticsclass. Your lack of logic, honesty, and reasoning is no different than hers. If GAR was only drawing a comparison, as you said, then why the long endnote to explain her knowledge that the information she placed in the book was not fact and just "speculation"?? Since you like the false comparison between W.W. Westcott and B.F. Westcott, why don't you go to the Wikipedia article for W.W. Westcott and try to make your case over there; show your parallels over there. If you want to spread false information about GAR that makes her look good and honest, rather than the liar she is in her books, go build your own web site and leave this Wikipedia article alone!! Beat your dead horse somewhere else. 67.142.130.19 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"No negative comments about living persons"? I think you misunderstand. You aren't allowed to spread SLANDER about a living person (or dead). Negative comments are allowed if they are verifiable, and the information in the article that you perceive as "negative" has references. --DearPrudence (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please do not attempt to change the subject from the problems about Gail Riplinger being addressed here. Just because all people have lied at some point in their life or because all have sinned has nothing to do with excusing any false teacher or any of their lies. Peter wrote an excellent chapter in his second epistle (chapter 2) concerning "false prophets" and "false teachers," yet he had also lied and sinned, but this did not disqualify him from addressing the subject. I don't care how many might question Westcott and Hort because I own most of their books and therefore know what they really wrote and believed. And if Riplinger is excused because everyone has told a lie or has sinned, making her wicked behavior of no big deal, then the same measure of exoneration can also be granted to Westcott and Hort, by their accusers, according to your weak argument. Please consider not listening to what others have taught you, but do your own research instead. Put some real effort into it and go to the libraries, look up the source books used by Riplinger, and verify her lying quotations and false information for yourself. In other words, please do what every other GAR supporter on this Talk page has been asked to do and do your own research before daring to argue with those who have. And if you are, by some chance (since you appear to be from the same country) the same person who posted just above who said "I am new to Ms Riplinger's work," then you are not as Unbiased as you claimed in your "edit summary" note.67.142.130.40 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well put. One can't excuse Riplinger's lies because "everybody does it". --DearPrudence (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I can see your point - I agree with you -you don't seem to care what other people opinion's are. And no I am not a fan of Riplinger (at least until you began attacking me) and I had not made up my mind about her. But well, seeing as I am supposively bias already I might as well make the crime fit your judgment.I will start advertising her work from today. All you have done is make me wonder about your motives in attacking people who are simply making enquiries about Riplinger's work.You might have me won to your viewpoint had you taken the time to think before you attacked me. I had only heard of her from a friend early this month and was still making a decision about her work. But I think I would rather be a supporter of Riplinger than end up judgmental like you two. Riplinger would appear to be putting her money where her mouth is. I suggest you nasty people do the same and write a book to refute her claims. Or do you lack conviction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.150.22 (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Who attacked you? How are we being "judgmental"? --DearPrudence (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If you choose to support Riplinger without having done your own research into her claims, simply because of your perception of someone's reply to you, then go right ahead. If you are swayed that easily by something, your mind was most likely already made up. It is only you who are responsible for your choices and your actions. No one can force you to do anything you don't really want to do. There were a lot of excuses why people chose to follow Hitler, too, but did that make them right? No, they will answer for their choices and won't be able to blame anyone but themselves. If you choose to advertise the work of a liar, whom you have not verified to be a truth teller, then that is your burden, no one else's. To quote you, "let those without sin cast the first stone," is not a judgmental remark against someone who has taken the time to verify the gross errors of Riplinger's work?? Please, reread your own post. And then, please go and read that scripture in proper context. Your own words show that checking something before believing it is not on the top of your list. You "heard" about Riplinger from a friend. So have thousands of others who believe her lies and buy her books. And, pray tell, what were you doing to "make a decision" about her work? If you choose to support Riplinger over those you perceive as "judgmental" just because you don't like their reply or their "opinion" then you need to know that Ms. Riplinger herself is very judgmental. Be sure you check out her "magazine" Blind Guides, where she rips (no pun intended) into every single Christian who has dared to expose the error of her work in a scriptural manner. And calling people "nasty" isn't judmental, now is it? No, that's because you believe you are justified in your opinion, which is the only right one, even though haven't bothered to find out if Riplinger is someone worthy of the support of honest people. Unless you lack conviction, go and verify Riplinger's teachings before allowing your emotions to support her in spite of someone else. Real conviction checks into things. You won't be able to say that you were not warned.67.142.130.19 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Your integrity was not attacked; you don't like that your "don't judge" argument backfired. If you are going to throw your "don't judge" argument into the ring, be prepared to accept the argument that is returned. Your post was full of accusation even though you have not done your own research to prove if Riplinger is telling the truth in her work. You chose to accuse people who have done their own research and you didn't receive the outcome you wanted. It was ok to share your opinion but it isn't ok for anyone else to. And, yes, your comment was judgmental. Please reread it. You didn't even address the part about the errors made against Westcott and Hort. Like most trollers, you pick and choose what you want to raise Cain over. Don't attack others just because they have done their homework and don't wish to support the work of a liar/slanderer. It boils down to your not liking the answer you got, and if you want to support a liar like Riplinger because of that, then that's your responsibility. Don't blame anyone else.67.142.130.19 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought I might revisit this site just once more. While I found Ms Ripinger's work is interesting I don't think all her work can conclusively point to any reason her work should exclude the use of modern translations. I am satisfied to use translations such as the NRSV and others. Even early dated commentaries that I consulted suggest that not all of the words chosen for the KJV are adequate. Others can decide for themselves.

[edit] Vandalism and POV Wording is not Allowed on Wikipedia

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

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

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

[edit] Archival

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

[edit] How much of this is original research?

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

JoshuaZ, the page references of the books used by Riplinger to misquote her subjects are clearly listed in the article. Westcott and Hort, for example, lived 100 over years ago. Their biographies, which she cites in her material and has used to change their words and make them say things they never said, are what have been used in this article to show what their biographies actually DO say. The largest part of Riplinger controversy is contained in her gross misquotation and misrepresentation of what other people actually said. Her own sources have been utilized in showing that she has manipulated people's words while claiming her account is the correct one. Also, the videos cited in the article can be viewed online by clicking on the link attached to them. So, yes, the "criticisms" are reliable. All one has to do is take the information provided here and check them out. You can view the majority of the books about Westcott and Hort, used by Riplinger in her books, at www.archive.org and check what was actually written about them.FannyMay (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
See no original research. Do we have reliable sources that have made these criticisms? If not, this is a synthesis and we can't have it here. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe this was already explained in my previous reply. However, I will explain once again and hope that it is clear. The information regarding Riplinger's misquotations of Westcott and Hort, as well as information provided in the Bio section, is NOT original research, and it is NOT opinion. Riplinger has used the biographies of Westcott and Hort in her book New Age Bible Versions. She has taken their quotes and words out of context (as is illustrated in the article), she has reworded what they actually said, and then placed her misquotes into her book, presenting them as fact. In other words, she has made up some very serious fibs about these men, and others, from which she has sold her books and made money. Riplinger's career as a "Bible protector" is marred by gross misrepresentation and the fictionalizing of actual events. Every example placed in this article that addresses her misquotations of Westcott and Hort, and others, is documented in the article with the page number of her book, where her misquoting occurs, and the page number of the sources (W & H bios, etc. cited by Riplinger in her books) cited by Riplinger, where the correct quotations are found. Anyone can easily verify that she has taken people's words out of context and changed their words. The recent vandalism to the article is what has placed "original research" into the article. The vandal's changes to the article lack references and he/she has been changing documented information from the objective to the subjective, as well as altering the encyclopedic style that is necessary for any integrity that Wikipedia hopes to have. The information I have placed in the article has references from the actual books. I gave the links where you, and anyone else, can find these books online and read them online. It is vandalism to an article that is not to be tolerated, unless cutting vandalism is no longer important to Wikipedia. In that case, then the entire article needs to be wiped and locked, otherwise the vandalism will continue and this site will go to the dogs.FannyMay (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read our policy on original research. Has anyone other than Wikipedia made the conclusions that these quotes are misquoted? If not, it is original research. If for example a newspaper or a noted historian or Biblical scholar reaches these conclusions we could quote that. But saying that she has misquoted based on primary sources is a synthesis and we can't do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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