Talk:Gail Riplinger/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Extreme Bias in this Article

REMINDER: All comments with abusive personal attacks (of the name-calling and ad hominem sort) will NOT be tolerated here and will be removed. So, now you know ahead of time.67.142.130.22 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Even comments like what I wrote immediately below are being deleted by the anti-Riplinger crowd. This is bizarre behaviour to be allowed on Wikipedia. You don't delete criticism in the discussion page. WILL A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR PLEASE STEP IN HERE AND REGAIN ORDER?
PS- When you delete these things there is a record of it. When you say you deleted "vandalism" or "extreme profane religious insults" or whatever you dream up all one has to do is go into history to see if it's true. I think we have alot of newbies here on wikipedia drawn by their hatred of Gail Riplinger.

If these comments are deleted I'll simply go straight to a Wikipedia moderator and have this dealt with. 75.26.191.31 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I reply, which comments are you speaking of? You seem to be using multiple IP addresses, so I want to be sure of which comments you are addressing before I say anything. --DearPrudence 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is being dominated by people with an extreme bias against Gail Riplinger. I would ask the Wikipedia editors to look into this. Any changes being made to either make neutral the bias or to change back what has been altered by the anti-Riplinger people is immediately being reversed and anybody who is not against the subject of the article is being called a vandal and threatened with legal action (see the bottom of this page where one of them has said they contacted my ISP). Riplinger is a controversial figure. It is mainly Christian male academics who despise her and those who follow these men. That's fine. It's their right. But they have no right to edit this article in a way that continually shuts out anything that isn't extremely negative towards Gail Riplinger. All they have are these tactics and they've brought them here into Wikipedia. I would hope a Wikipedia editor is reading this and will take some measures to bring the ridiculous state of this article to something resembling an encyclopedia article. 75.26.191.31 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the article is well-sourced. Much of it needs to be pruned down, but it is still correct. Perhaps I have been missing the edits that try to remove the "bias" from the article (and I don't believe there is much, if any), but the only instance I can think of when a positive comment was removed was when someone kept adding positive comments to the "Controversy" section. --DearPrudence 03:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You might want to let him know you are the Wikipedia Editor, DearPrudence, since that is what he is wanting. You probably need to spell that out so he understands.67.142.130.48 15:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I actually haven't had much to do with the article's actual writing - when I first discovered it it was ridiculously anti-Riplinger and copied directly from another website, but after the complete rewrite I did (here), I've been mostly editing what others put into it. Copyediting, sourcing, removing vandalism, etc. --DearPrudence 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

REMINDER: Poorly sourced comments and vandalism are not allowed in Wikipedia articles or talk pages. To the person 75.26.169.54 who continues to vandalize this site, all the information that people have contributed to this article so far is 100% documented with page numbers and sources. The page numbers and source name of all Riplinger examples are WELL documented, which means they are within Wikipedia guidelines. What you are doing is vandalism and it will not be tolerated. If you are a Christian then you will abide by the rules of this site. If you don't like them you may leave it. Doesn't God require you to obey rules and live in peace with all people? It seems you need to spend more time reading your Bible instead of causing trouble where you have no right to. Your nasty attitude is far from that of a Christian and you set a very poor example for what Christianity is supposed to be.67.142.130.37 01:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

67.142.130.37: Thank you for pointing out the validity of the sources, but please be careful with your comments - a person's spiritual beliefs should not interfere with their editing of this page in any way. That's why the offending comment below was removed; telling people that they will go to Hell for for "slandering" Riplinger (as that poster said we would) is NOT appropriate, but neither is telling someone they should edit responsibly as a Christian. Just try to keep religion out of the talk page altogether. (This is, once again, directed at all editors, not just you.) :) --DearPrudence 04:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not implied that this vandal's spiritual beliefs should keep them from editing nor that his beliefs are any less valid than anyone else's. That was not the point that was trying to be made. This person with that block of I.P. numbers has never contributed one constructive "edit" to this article, only vandalism. He/she has demonstrated that they disrespect Wikipedia and all those who have helped put the Riplinger article together. We know it is the same person because we have been tracking his I.P. He seems to believe himself a crusader in the defense of Riplinger, even when the truth is being told. There is a good sized handful of us who have dealt with this issue long before it showed up on Wikipedia. Let us tell you, there are some who will not stop, no matter what the rules say, and they will continue to defend Riplinger no matter how many errors she has in her books. The above comment was to point out that if he is what he claims to be (as he has claimed in previous comments) then he should act like what his beliefs are and stop causing trouble. Everything he has added has been hearsay from Riplinger's books and POV, and he has not stopped when asked. If he wants to edit constructively, I don't care what "faith" he is, he just needs to be constructive and abide by the rules. Otherwise, he is just being an interference and he knows he is. I'm letting you know ahead of time, the lock put on the article will need to be on for a very long time or this article will go where it shouln't, because Mr. 75.26.169.54 in California isn't going to just go away. And doesn't anyone think it just a little odd that Linguisticsclass has gone totally silent, yet this vandal is working overtime to thwart the process?72.171.0.149 12:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to keep religion out of the subject matter. Gail has gone into many Churches, sold many books that cover Christian subjects. She has turned many people's quotes into lies by making them say something they didn't. She also slams many Bible Translations calling them new age versions. The new age doesn't use Bibles, yet they reject the Bible, God and Jesus Christ. The new age want's to destroy Christianity and Gail is trying to do this through her books, videos and her false teachings. Be careful there is many people caught under her spells and deception. --Veritas-truth 16:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[There was an offensive, religious attack posted by 75.26.169.54 at 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC), accusing a recent edit of being anti-Riplinger vandalism. I have removed it but have left this note to make the following arguments more coherent. --DearPrudence 06:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)]

Instead of rambling on like a robot repeating what most KJOs say when they have no argument, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and start checking the references that go with the information added to this article. If you think it's "vandalism" then PROVE IT and stop repeating the same old non-arguments. If you decide not to take the smarter road, keep your mouth closed, because you are wearing your I.Q. on your lapels. In other words, the spew that KJOs keep reciting without any solidity to their "arguments" is getting mighty old and a lot of people are tired of hearing it.67.142.130.34 02:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried to edit this article to tone it down as much as humanly possible and still present GAR for what she is. She really is a conspiracy theorist, and openly talks about the conspiracy in her own book. She really is a home economics professor. Her scholarship is lampooned by anyone who bothers to review her books. The article is more neutral now, so I hope it passes the NPOV test - if not, tell me how to fix it. GAR is extremely important in the KJO world. Her book basically split the KJO world into two camps - the "textual" KJO who advocate a return to the Textus Receptus, and the "conspiracy" KJO who see modern Bibles as a way to undermine Christianity. Her book is more or less an epoch marker for this split, just as the Wilkinson book is an epoch marker for the "good" and "bad" Greek texts, an issue which never came up in earlier times. Scott1329m 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm going to try to do a complete rewrite of this article. At the moment most (if not all) of it comes directly from personal websites --DearPrudence 03:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the entire article; most of the information had to be removed because it was taken directly from two personal websites; they both contain the same information). I have also removed the image, as it is apparently copyrighted. --DearPrudence 06:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons" says, "contentious material - whether negative...or just questional - about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages,..." "Material from self-published...websites...should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link..." "Remove...contentious material...about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia including user and talk pages." "Self-published material may never be used in BLP unless written by the subject him or herself" "Materials available soley on partisan websites...if derogatory, should not be used at all" Gail Riplinger

I am Gail Riplinger. I am an academic (retired University professor). I just discovered the slanderous articles on this site. It appears that religious extremists, who find themselves unable to discuss the concrete linguistic aspects of my books, have taken to outright nonsense and slander. There are no sentences in the current or historical articles that contain a shread of accuracy (e.g. I have never taught Home Economics. This and other bald errors lead me to conclude that the article's author confused me with several other people (I would hate to think that anyone would make up things, but the venomous tenor of the article could lead to that conclusion). Such distortions are beneath the level of this fine and useful encyclopedia. The picture is copywritten and must be removed also.
The following is a brief vita which should replace the current articles immediately.
Gail Riplinger has B.A., M.A., and M.F.A. degrees and has done additional postgraduate study at Harvard and Cornell Universities. As a university professor, with graduate faculty status, the author taught seventeen different courses, served as department chair, and was selected for the Honor Society’s teaching award and membership in a national Education Honorary. Riplinger is in several editions of Who’s Who.
Riplinger is also the author of numerous books on linguistics. Early on a serious investigation into the cognitive processes blossomed into a college textbook (accepted for publication by Prentice Hall). In 1993 the book, New Age Bible Versions, became an international best seller (over 200,000 in print). For it the author was honored with a Doctorate from Hyles-Anderson College. It has been used as a textbook in scores of colleges. Permission has been requested and granted to publish and translate the book into Korean, Japanese, Russian, Norwegian, Polish, and portions in several European languages. Three years teaching English as a second language provided the foundation for another textbook, The Language of the King James Bible.
The most recent textbook, In Awe of Thy Word, is a tome of 1,200 pages. It developed as a result of a lifelong study of language and cognitive behavior, that is, how the mind perceives, receives and retrieves information, particularly words and their semantic sense. Background coursework in acoustics and sound at Harvard University, a minor in history, and coursework in advertising (with research in semantics) merged to add an original and interesting perspective. Glowing reviews by Dr.John Hinton Ph.D., graduate of Harvard University, Dr. James Sightler, graduate of Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Polly Powell, retired professor from Clemson University, and others are available at http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/testimonies.html
Riplinger participated in a team which created an award winning hospital for cognitively impaired children, and was invitation by President Reagan’s Citizens Ambassador Program to join a team of U.S. doctors and architects to share research abroad. Riplinger was recently invited to join President Bush, the Vice-President, and Mrs.Elizabeth Dole and others for a meeting and dinner party. Debbieandjim 05:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing up some points, but the article will need proper citations for any of the information you mentioned to be included. I will add the vital information you wrote as long as I can find references for it. --DearPrudence 05:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, Gail. Your "invitation" to dinner with the President and Elizabeth Dole did not take place "recently." This information was taken from page 1178 of the book In Awe of Thy Word, copyrighted 2003. This is late 2007, over three years since you wrote that remark in your book. "Recent" is not the correct word and since you claim to be an expert on words, you should know better. Also, the real question about your dinner invitation is whether or not you paid the high ticket price to attend. Many citizens receive these invitations to have dinner with the President. It doesn't mean there is anything admiring or significant about you in the general public; just that certain organizations have your name on their roll. It's time you stopped trying to impress your followers by hyping up information about yourself. Instead of telling us you wrote textbooks, why don't you tell us what their titles are so we can go read them and really be impressed?? Instead of telling us that Prentice Hall accepted your cognitive process textbook, why don't you tell us the title of the textbook so we can find and read a copy and be impressed?? No, you don't want people to have access to that information because they would find out quickly that most of what you say about yourself is a half-truth, if not a complete sham. You try to beef up your vita but it collapses like a house of cards when people who know better than to not check you out find out who and what you really are. You are a fraud and you have made money off thousands of people through your deception. 72.171.0.143 (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who Debbie and Jim are but it appears they somehow believe they speak for Riplinger. It needs to be brought to the public's attention that they have totally wiped out portions of this page that contained documented information that Riplinger does not like to be known about her. Wikipedia needs to look into this. It seems like cheating to have removed information that you want kept secret even though someone has found out about it via public records. For Wikipedia's information, these public records were cited here as references for the information shared in this article but has apparently been wiped out by Debbie and Jim on behalf of Riplinger. No one here is making up anything or has mistaken Gail Anne Riplinger with being anyone else. How else do you think I was able to obtain her birthdate and place of birth? Nope, no "bald errors" here. If she keeps hiding this factual information we will continue to go public with it. How can this article be improved if those who don't like certain factual information being placed in it have it removed at every turn? I invite Debbie and Jim to either be honest and replace the information they inappropriately removed or it will be placed back in the article once again, with all references intact as they ORIGINALLY were. Thank you. Purpleparrot 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who rewrote the entire article. Before the rewrite, all of the information was taken directly from personal websites; they both contain the same information), which is a copyright violation. It was also unfairly slanderous - an encyclopaedia must remain neutral on a subject. --DearPrudence 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
DearPrudence, thank you for explaining. I will work on rewriting my portion of the article and resubmit it under the "Controversy" section. It will follow the format of an objective biography.Purpleparrot 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! --DearPrudence 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that if it is Mrs. Riplinger that is now deleting necessary information from this biography that if she does not STOP it immediately, we will go public with more bio information. That is the correct birth year and birth name. We have documented proof. You can't just sweep it under the rug and make it go away by removing it from this bio. Believe it, Gail, we know about you, who you are. Purpleparrot 02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Purpleparrot: I'm not taking sides here (because I myself don't know much about Riplinger), but you should probably provide a source for the information if it is a disputed point just to avoid debate. --DearPrudence 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Prudence and Mr. Scott McClare (aka: Purpleparrot, Scott, Ransom)
The rules already established for Wikipedia solve all problems. Please read them carefully. See the following articles: Verifiability: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed..." "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." "Articles should rely on reliable, third party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy..." "Anyone can create a website...for that reason,...personal websites...are largely not acceptable as sources..." "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons." Biographies of Living Persons: "subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced materials." "Material available solely on partisan websites...should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published...websites...should never be used as a source about a living person, including external links, unless written by or published by the subject of the article." "Subjects may provide material about themselves through...personal websites." "...public records...should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source" Their inclusion can be a "conjectural interpretation of a source" also. Neutral Point of View: "a balanced selection of sources"... "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints." "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." "...books...it is important indeed how some artists and some works have been received...by prominent experts..." Thank you DearPrudence for your kind advice. I have refered this article to the Living Persons Biographies Noticeboard, so edits are under close scrutiny. Please be scholarly, Scott; this is a well-respected encyclopedia, not a venue for libel. Gail Riplinger Linguisticsclass 05:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Linguisticsclass for cutting out the "birds" tongue (Rev.18:2), we DO know you- he does not!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.251.105 (talk • contribs)
Look, Gail, if that is really you...you need to go look at other "living" bios on Wikpedia. You just don't like certain information known about you because you like to keep secret since you know what might happen if your following found out about it. Public records are public records and they are easy to come by. In case you missed it somehow, when the court records were originally placed in this bio, they were listed with case numbers and the courts where they can be found. Those textbooks are yours and you now they are. And as for the smart-mouth Bible misquoter who posted in support of Riplinger, you need to get a registered name and stop hiding behind your unsigned IP number. You twist scripture from context just like Riplinger. No, you don't actually know anything about Riplinger because you obviously haven't bothered to check. You need read what God has to say about the liar's "tongue." Start in Proverbs.Purpleparrot
Dear the person purporting to be Gail Riplinger: I am "Mr. Scott McClare." On Wikipedia I go by the username "Ransom," so naturally I have no idea where you get the idea that I have contributed to this page, and I frankly resent the false accusation that I have in any way used Wikipedia as a "venue for libel," of you or anyone else. Indeed, my contributions page clearly indicates that until adding this paragraph to this talk page today, I have never contributed a word to this article. Assuming the dubious premise that you are the real Gail Riplinger, obviously your fact-checking online is about as rigorous as for your books. --Ransom 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DearPrudence: Thank you. It is not my wish to debate this with Riplinger or anyone else. It's just that she seems to enjoy making this bio difficult because of information that she doesn't want made accessible to the public. When I originally posted my information, I included a source under References but DebbieandJim removed that information when they wiped out the page over a week ago. I could replace it once again but I am sure that Ms. Gail would see it removed yet again, making this bio a totaly waste of time. It seems more reasonable, at this point, to just boot this bio off Wikipedia since writing it seems nearly impossible. There are those of us out here who have done their homework concerning Riplinger. Instead of playing fair and being honest on her bio, she wants it her way and only her way, which has been quite evident the last few weeks. She has shared vague information about herself over the years without offering enough detail because then people could actually look her up and find out there are things about her that would cause controversy among some of the churches she has infiltrated. SHe says, "I was in an International Who's Who" but never WHICH one so people can verify what she says. She says, "I was invited by President Reagan as a citizen Ambassador to Russia and Finland" but never reveals when or what actual program this was with. Some of us have searched for this so-called Reagan Citizen Ambassador program and have found nothing of the sort. She says, "I authored six textbooks" but never gives the names of those textbooks so people can look at them if they wish. Would this have something to do with the fact that it would reveal a different last name? She gives enough vague detail to appear credible to people who don't bother to check her out and find out if she's trustworthy but not enough info to really check out what she says. Many of us have collated her book New Age Bible Versions alongside the original sources she pretends to quote from and have found gross misrepresentations of what was actually said. She alters the quotes of those she pretends to quote from in her book and makes them say things they never said. Her books are fraudulent and she knows they are because she wrote them that way. I can personally attest that her dishonest books and materials have caused serious splits inside churches where this kind of stuff ought not to be. If people's hands are going to be tied when it comes to writing the bio of Gail Riplinger (which seems to get the vote so far of most ridiculously controversial on Wikipedia) then why have it on here? If people are looking for an actual bio on Riplinger, they won't find it here, sad to say.Purpleparrot 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I have copies of all six of Riplinger's college textbooks and they have nothing to do with "linguistics," "history," or the "Bible." Looks like the cat's out of the bag, Gail. It would be better for you if you just tell the truth instead of fudging your Bio. Bible Defender.

"Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons" says, "contentious material - whether negative...or just questionable - about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages,..." "Material from self-published...websites...should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link..." "Remove...contentious material...about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia including user and talk pages." "Self-published material may never be used in BLP unless written by the subject him or herself..." "Materials available soley on partisan websites...if derogatory, should not be used at all..." "Editors should also be on the look out for a biased or malicious content about living persons." Gail Riplinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguisticsclass (talk • contribs)

Ms. Riplinger, the article is certainly not biassed at all. In fact, much of the article is already devoted to what could be considered positive information. As there is a great deal of controversy surrounding you and your work, the Controversy section must be used to explain the controversy. Praise does not belong in it. And the websites used for citations in the Controversy section are not personal websites, but extracts from your work that reference those who disagree with you. --DearPrudence 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The person claiming to be "Gail Riplinger" appears to be very confused. So far this article is on the rather positive side, as it favors her the way she wants it to. AMEN that there is a great deal of controversy surrounding Riplinger and there's a lot more that could be added along with concrete references to back it up. Riplinger makes herself controversial. She hides who she actually is behind the controversy. Controversy distracts from the real facts. Why not just remove the ridiculous bio and be done with it?? Tired of the Games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.49 (talk • contribs)

This is ridiculous, if we can't use personal 3rd party websites to verify information, for example, her Home Economics degree, then why is her personal website being used to site information? I'm removing all information that has no source other than her own web site (Which shouldn't be a viable source anyway.) And, DearPrudence, it is obvious that you are not nearly as unbiased as you claim, and should not have rewritten this article. Here is my evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gail_Riplinger&diff=155627727&oldid=146710308 You added the controversy section, then twisted it to point to Riplinger's own articles, rather than her critics! AzureWolf 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment until now, but I'll still reply. At the time I did the rewrite, the entire article was a copy of a very anti-Riplinger website. I didn't know anything about Riplinger, but I removed the slanderous information and added what information I could from her website, figuring it would at least be accurate (of course, now that I've learnt more about Riplinger, I'm far less trusting of anything she writes). I didn't twist the article to praise her, I was writing only the information that seemed to be accurate; it is difficult to find a site that presents an argument against Riplinger without being incredibly slanted, so it's hard to judge what is true and what is not. There seems to be very little middle-ground where she is concerned. --DearPrudence (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree a little with AzureWolf. I too notice a bit of the bias, despite the claims. The links to Riplinger's critics disappeared several times. Was Linguisticsclass allowed to delete them or did DearPrudence? To avoid bias, the links to sites giving critical analysis of Riplinger need to be put back.Purpleparrot 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In a few cases I may have deleted a critical website simply because it was overtly slanderous. Articles and websites that are critical of Riplinger are fine, but some of the ones that have been linked to were much too biassed, many criticising her simply for having been divorced. --DearPrudence (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Riplinger obviously knows what her birthdate is, the city she was born in, last name at birth, etc. So, instead of coming on here and denying information in the article, crying libel, and demanding information as erroneous, why does Riplinger not give her own birthdate and birth name? At least, here on the Talk Page. If the dates and info previously put in the article are wrong, then why does Riplinger not give the correct info? Don't just say it's error, correct the error with the right information.Purpleparrot 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added some information to the Controversy section. It comes from matching quotations in New Age Bible Versions to the words cited by Riplinger in the original book Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, which I have a personal copy of. I will add more to this section as time goes on. I have not yet figured out how to make a footnote number and a link that points to the References section. If someone who is more Wikisavvy that I am would kindly fix this, I would be grateful.FannyMay 03:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

DearPrudence: I just removed the vandalism added by an anoymous user who placed unsourced material about Westcott into the Controversy portion of the article. In fact, what was added is nothing more than hear-say and non-facts found in Benjamin Wilkinson's and Riplinger's books that are clearly disproved by the actual books written by Westcott and his son. The whole idea of comparing what Riplinger says in her bok to what the actual source says is to show what has been made up about Westcott and others who are not "King James Only" advocates. The part about Westcott being an evolutionist is found in Riplinger's books and has been exposed as a falsification by using the actual sources she cites. The information that Westcott was an "evolutionist" and a "spiritualist" is nothing more than fiction, proven so by the actual quotations that she and others have twisted out of context (just as the example in the Controversy section illustrates), and this false information is slander. But it's easy to slander dead men since dead men can't speak.207.179.113.91 02:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Divorced

Is Gail divorced? Does anybody know? 24.205.52.191 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I know about Gail's divorces. I found out by accessing public records. First, I started with her current marriage (to Michael D. Riplinger) license record, obtainable at the Clerk of Courts in Summit County, Ohio. On that marriage record it states that she was married two times before. On this record, the case number of the most recent divorce is listed. If you go to the courthouse in Ravenna, OH (Portage County) you can pull up this divorce record on your own. You can also get the courthouse where the marriage record for her second marriage can be found. On the second marriage record it lists the case number of her first divorce. On the marriage license for the second divorce it lists the case number for the first divorce. At this time, I am withholding the names of her first two husbands to protect their identity. One of them is deceased as of October 1999 and the other is still alive, meaning that, according to God's word, she is living in adultery. One note of special importance is that there were only two months between her second divorce and third (current)marriage. It seems that Gail has this pattern of lying that runs rather deep. Sadly, the twisting of other people's words and her slander against certain people in her books parallels the secrets she has kept hidden about her past. When the marriage information became public on the original Wikipedia article, she went to work quickly to have it totally expunged. Then she denied the information was true, even though it is very easy to prove it is true. Even more sadly, so many people who have trusted her to tell them the truth in her books and so forth have never bothered to obey the Bible they claim to believe, which tells them to "test the spirits" and "be as the Bereans" who tested everything that even Paul the Apostle told them to be sure that he was telling them the truth. It is not so much the problem that she has kept her questionable past hidden but that she has boldly denied it when it has been brought to the surface. Unfortunately, her personal testimony can be trusted as much as the misinformation found in her books. May God's truth and light set the deceieved free.69.179.60.71 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.60.71 (talk) 20:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

69.179.60.71, please do not let your religious views filter into your edits to this article or its talk page. This talk page often turns into a religious battleground, and as this is an encyclopaedia (which means that we must remain neutral), it's the last thing we want to happen. --DearPrudence 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Did Gail Riplinger write this?

There are so many things wrong with this article. The biography doesn't even touch on many issues. First off, it says she has a degree, but does not list what she majored in. It then states "She was given an honorary doctorate for her book New Age Bible Versions" without citing a source. If I am correct, they are referring to the late Jack Hyles, who also awarded a doctorate to John R. Rice's horse. Then it gives a list of favorible reviews. A linguist, pediatrician, and English teacher are not experts in the topics that are discussed in New Age Bible Versions.

The controversy section is the worst of all. It says only one man supporting the KJV only movement criticized her book. I guess they forgot Dave Hunt, and the Trinitarian Bible Society. It is true that they do not believe the KJV is inspired as Riplinger does, but they do believe in the Textus Receptus being the perfect Greek text and the KJV being the most accurate English translation. It also does not mention the fact that many, if not most, Christians refer to her teaching as cultic. To top it off, the sources that are cited in this section are not to the critiques, but to her answer to the critiques. Clearly a Riplinger follower (if not her) wrote this article.

I also noticed that it says she is an advocate of the Textus Receptus or Traditional text. Two things are wrong with this statement. First, the Traditional text (better knows as the Majority text) is not the Textus Receptus, as there are over a 1000 diferences between the two, with no two manuscripts being exactly alike. Second, she does not support any Greek text because she does not believe we can study the Greek anymore. I believe she is a "English only" advocate. She has a chapter in her book 'New Age Bible Versions' titled 'Lucifer's Lexicons'. To my knowledge (I could be wrong on this statement), she claims that only the KJV translators had knowledge of the correct way to translate the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. That knowledge has since been gone.

This whole article is very inaccurate, and short. It does not even touch on many of the issues of Gail Riplinger. Nowhere in this article does it even mention her statment of divine authorship. That is right, she claims God wrote 'New Age Bible Versions', and she was just a secretary. Nowhere does it mention the gross distortions of quotations that can demonstrability be shown. Nowhere does it mention that many who hold a KJV only view, have distanced themselves from Riplinger, Ruckman, and the like. I suggest this article be rewritten by somebody who is not a follower of Riplinger. The person who keeps changing this article in favor of Riplinger and distorting facts should be be locked out. May the truth be known. I personally am a follower of Christ, and because of that, I have to follow the truth. I agree with some statements above. This article should be void of any religous attack, but also should expose many of the issues around Riplinger. RyanDaniel 09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ryan. It appears that Riplinger did write the article since she has supposedly left personaly comments here--or someone did it for her. It is clear that the article is meant to sugar-coat the real facts and the serious controversy that surrounds Riplinger. She creates controversy and then attempts to dodge the conflict that it creates. This article seriously needs to be rewritten. The first author, Scott (see his first note at the very top of this Talk page), had written an excellent and true to the facts article, which was wiped out by some Riplinger followers. The article has not been right since. There are a lot of people out here who know about the damage caused in churches by Riplinger. It is nearly impossible to escape religion with this subject because everything Riplinger has done to make herself public is surrounded by religion. Obviously, the article should be as neutral as possible but this talk page is a different situation. Just by the witnesses on this page, this article could be rewritten to more correctly reflect Riplinger and the facts but there are those who wish to protect her by continuing to cause trouble on this site. I vote as some others have, that this article should be deleted from Wikipedia. It is a waste of space and will never reflect the true story and gives a bad taste to the good reputation Wikipeda is trying to create.204.63.207.111 20:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. The article was a complete copy-violation of a very anti-Riplinger website and was very POV, so I had to wipe it all out and rewrite it as best I could, but Riplinger (or the user who claims to be her) denies new facts that are added to the article and has repeatedly added praise to the Controversy section. The article needs to be expanded to show what a controversial figure she is; as it is now, it is almost impossible to get any idea of how people have reacted to her ideas. --DearPrudence 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
DearPrudence, they are talking about your rewrite, not the previous article as can be easily seen from the dates. And the article, before your rewrite, did not copy-violate any website. I assume you are talking about avpublications.org That website, and this is obvious if you look closely and compare the oldest versions of this article, is a copy of THIS article, not the other way around. I know because I was one of the first to write anything on this article. AzureWolf 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, alright - there was no way to tell which order the two pieces of writing had been posted. My point still stands, however, that the article at the time was extremely anti-Riplinger. I don't like her views either, but the article needed balance (and still needs balance, actually, but no one seems to be coming forward with positive information about her). --DearPrudence (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"...but no one seems to be coming forward with positive information about her..." This should tell people about Riplinger. There is nothing positive to report about her because her work is based on untruths and she is a fraud. The day she recants her voluminous collection of false facts and hateful slander against those she has wronged and apologizes for all the trouble she has caused, will be a most positive day, indeed. Sadly, until she does that, she will continue to enjoy the $$$ she has made selling fiction labeled as "the latest research."67.142.130.11 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes - it's hard to add positive information about the work of someone who seems to have twisted words out of context left and right simply to prove her point. --DearPrudence (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many who have done their homework on Gail Anne Riplinger, MANY. The problem here with this article, and with her, is that she does not want the "icky" facts known. She wants only the pretty stuff to show. Her opinion of herself really doesn't count; it is the public's opinion that matters because it is the public that she has afffected. She thinks she can create controversy, slam others, and then have it all her way, like one of the previous posters said: "She creates controversy and then attempts to dodge the conflict" created. If Riplinger, or whoever it is posting for her, is not locked out, this article will NEVER be properly written. It has no chance and is a waste of space on Wikipedia. It's almost laughable. Ryan Daniel is accurate in what he wrote. I have discovered the same things he and others have. We are witnesses to the truth of the matter at hand. Ryan put my exact thoughts into words. Without proper control of those who abuse this site, how will this article ever reflect the truth?72.171.0.148 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.148 (talk) 12:15, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

To let everyone know, I am not attacking Gail Riplinger. I am just attacking falsehood. Anyone reading this article does not even get a fraction of the real issues and truth about Gail Riplinger. In my opinion, she has done harm to the cause of Christ. The article should be written from an unbiased editor, with all of the information cited. If you stick to that criteria, I have no doubt that truth will be known, and Gail will be exposed. I am never for personal attacks, but I am for defending the truth. My personal opinion of her work as an enemy of true Christian faith has nothing to do with this article. The falsehood and slander that flows through her work . . does. God bless you guys. RyanDaniel 11:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately it seems to be difficult to sort through the real facts and the fabricated ones; I doubt all negative points people about Riplinger are true, but she (that is, LinguisticsClass) denies them all. It's hard to find an unbiased source to use for this article as almost every website mentioning her is either extremely pro-Riplinger or extremely anti-Riplinger, so everyone should remain sceptical whilst looking for references. --DearPrudence 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree. The great thing about her book 'New Age Bible Versions' is that she cites her sources. That gives you the ability to check for yourself whether she is misleading or slandering. I for one think that if her divorces can be verified, then it should be noted. She has reached a semi-celebrity status, and if true, should be known. You can go through many articles of celebrities and get the good, the bad, and the ugly . . . because it's true. One main thing is that the article as is right now is a joke, and does not even come close to representing anything that has to do with the many issues of Gail Riplinger. We should have information about her early life, her College history, etc. If an article is going to be about a person it should meet the same qualities as many of the other articles. This article not only misrepresents views and facts. It also is incredibly silent on many issues. The article needs to be revised, and should represent facts that can be verified, not POVs. RyanDaniel 05:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
All true. As it is now, this article is nothing more than what Riplinger writes about herself in the bio found on her own web site: www.avpublications.com. The truth is, there is more to her than she wants to have known, so of course she is going to disagree with ALL of it. Unless she writes what she wants to be known, nothing else will be written. There are others who can write more about her with concrete sources and references to back them up, but their work will probably continue to be sabotaged on here. The thing is, when someone has something they want to hide about themselves, they are going to be as diligent as possible in fighting it and having it removed so the public won't see it. What this article needs is a person who has actually done in depth research into Riplinger and who has compared the claims in her books with the actual sources she cites in them.67.142.130.44 17:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Riplinger's divorces are true and verifiable. The truth needs to be known. She has not only lied to the gullible in her books but she has lied about her past when confronted with it on here. Her lies have deceived wonderful people in my former church and have caused an ungodly division because of her false teachings. She preys upon the ignorant, those who trust her too much to dare check her out. In several interviews she has mentioned the young ladies at Kent State University that came into her office all distraught over life struggles. Riplinger needs to explain how she was a professor for those ten years, somewhere between 1976 and 1986, counsiling young ladies on how to live godly lives while she herself was filing for divorce against two husbands (one of them abandonment on her part). In the 1996 video where she is teaching in the pulpit of Temple Baptist Church in Tennessee, she says that she was saved when she was 26 years old while going to graduate school. This "being saved" would have taken place within the year before the first divorce. Riplinger has said some heavy-handed stuff toward people who are divorced or those labeled with "adultery," yet, she keeps her past secret from her faithful defenders. To defend the truth, Riplinger must be addressed and the only way is to be honest about what she has done and continues to do. I have experienced firsthand what her false teaching has done to many Christians. This article needs to be written the right way, showing the good, bad, and the ugly (as Ryan said), or it shouldn't be written at all. If people want to read a pretty, nicely tailored Riplinger bio, they can see one on her web site or on one of the many sites that defend her without any question. Some of us out here have had to live through the mess made by the antichrist agenda found in her books. There will probably be more coming forward. Riplinger woke a sleeping giant by going where she has no right to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.60.71 (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note that when we mention her divorces in the article, we will be mentioning them because they are part of her life - NOT because they "go against God's will" etc. (I'm not targeting you on this; it's a comment that's been left many times by different people on this talk page.) Saying that she has misled members of the Christian community is biassed; saying that she has gained controversy for preaching a widely unaccepted view is not. Just something to keep in mind. --DearPrudence 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that we should stick with the facts. However, controversial topics should be represented. In the Tom Cruise article, it mentions that some entertainment publications have suggested that he is a homosexual. Notice the article is not stating with any fact that he is gay, just that some have suggested it. This information would not fall under the biography or early life section because it does not belong there. However, it is stated because it is an issue of Tom Cruise. The article also makes it completely clear that this is only a view point from that publication, and not fact. It also makes it known that Tom Cruise denies the accusation and even has taken legal action. It should be the same with Gail Riplinger. If her divorces can be verified and documented, then it should go in. If somebody wants to mention that many church leaders consider her teachings cultic, then that should be allowed also. Of course, it would have to represent that it is the point of view of certain persons with citation of an article or document representing that view. This article should be void of any religious attack by any editor. The editors of this article should not have their point of view represented and should only stick with unbiased documented and verifiable facts. However, again, if should be noted that many leaders consider her teaching cultic and divisive. It is honest and just presenting an issue of Gail Riplinger. True or not, is for the reader to decide. Gail Riplinger being abusive and divisive is not a fact (it is to me, but again, it is my POV), but many prominent Christian leaders holding that view point, . . . is. God bless, RyanDaniel 01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. --DearPrudence 07:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
DearPrudence, part of Riplinger's controversy would seem to be her silence about her past, and since there are those here who have found out about her divorces, does the divorce information go under Bio or Controversy? Her divorces have most likely not been published by a reliable publication that is in relation to the topic of the Riplinger article but the divorce records (public records) would be published and available in the courthouse where those records would be stored. Anyone could then verify those records with the court. The reason that seemingly no "reliable" source related to this article has published her divorce information would be because she has been careful to avoid mentioning it in any public places or published media. So, how would an editor go about including her divorces in her Wikipedia Bio when the only real references would be court records? If her divorces are true then they lend to the controversy surrounding her because having her divorces publicly known by many of the churches she has had relationships with could possibly change the course of events (i.e., how they feel about her materials, trusting her, etc.), which is why it would be important for GAR to keep them secret and, thus, would not allow them to be published anywhere in any sources that have added to her "celebrity" status. There are probably people who need to know about all this before they can procede and write the article, especially the controversy section. As for myself, I have compared large portions of her books (her quoting of others and Scripture, etc.) with the original sources she cites and am able to verify whether or not she has distorted their words and fabricated false information, which I can include in the article with documentation from her own books and the actual sources quoted. But how does the person who knows about her divorces include the information in the article without be accused of doing "original research"?72.171.0.142 13:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply! I would say that, given the controversy of divorce itself in the Christian Church, it could be included under "Controversy" as well as "Biography". However, it must be made clear that the divorces are only controversial because many people consider them to be so. I say this because in older edits of the page, written by highly anti-Riplinger editors, her divorces were used as proof that she is evil and cannot be trusted. This approach, of course, is very POV and should be avoided. So as long as it's made clear that the divorces may upset some members of the Christian community, and are therefore controversial, they can go under that heading; using the divorces as proof of her character is unacceptable.
Thank you for bringing this up! --DearPrudence 07:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section rewrite

I've just cleaned up the Controversy section; many of the examples of misquotes had to be removed, as the section was too long, but I kept a couple of them and created a Misquotes section.

However, I've left up the "expand this section" template as more information on her controversial ideas needs to be added - misquotes are, to be sure, a big part of it, but there is more. --DearPrudence 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

DearPrudence: Thank you for editing the Misquote section. I knew it was a lot of info and detail and wanted to give the best picture of some of the misquoting but am glad you chose which examples were best to keep in the article. I am currently working on a section concerning Westcott and Hort being misquoted by Riplinger to make them appear as "evolutionists" and "liberals" when they were not. I have original copies of most of the Westcott books (as well as his son's two volume bio) cited by Riplinger and have been able to verify Riplinger's incredible misquoting of him. I will post several examples so you can choose which ones are best. Thanks. FannyMay 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good! Thank you. They provide valuable insight into the inaccuracies of Riplinger's books. --DearPrudence 02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

DearPrudence: Apparently, the same Riplinger supporter keeps coming on here and vandalizing the article. He removed the entire Controversy section even though it had rock-solid references to back it. He also came in and undid the edit to his comments that you had done. Is there a way to deal with vandals like this? I am about to report him to his ISP for abuse. By reversing what you have done for this article, he is now fighting with Wikipedia's guidelines and administrative decisions, which is something not to be tolerated on Wikipedia, correct? Thank you. FannyMay 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A log of "his" I.P. numbers, along with a detailed report of "his" abuse, has been forwarded to his Internet provider. FannyMay 02:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Savior" vs. "Saviour"

To the person posting from Duke University and through Reston, VA: It doesn't matter one iota that GAR says Jesus Christ is her "Saviour," this is not how the word is spelled and when a person is speaking, savior and saviour are the same word. This has more to do with GAR's bizarre controversial cult-like teachings that Jesus Christ is not a Christian's Savior unless they spell it Saviour as the British do. 67.142.130.33

Technically, the general non-American spelling is "saviour" - it's not just in Britain. :) Anyway, I'm not really sure why this argument is happening at all. As you have said, Riplinger was speaking at the time, and as this is an article about an American, it should use American spellings. --DearPrudence 03:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I forgot that in the English speaking parts of Canada, it is spelled with a U, right? As are the words colour, savour, splendour, odour, and so on.
The thing is, GAR's bizarisms go beyond misquotes to what some can only consider as rank judgmentalism based only on her own made-up beliefs. In at least one of her books, she claims that if "Savior" is not spelled "Saviour" in a Bible then it is not talking about Jesus Christ. As many know, the KJV was translated in Great Britain where "Savior" (as America spells it) was spelled only as "Saviour," which totally explains the original spelling. I'd like to challenge GAR followers who feel the need to use the "correct" spelling of Savior, to go back to the original Greek, which the Bible was originally written in, and use that spelling since it existed before English was ever thought of. :)72.171.0.149 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for "intruding" on your KJV/GAR bashing website. I was under the impression this was an encyclopedia that the public could expand upon, but recent actions to my posts to the article clearly show that ONLY anti-KJV/anti- Riplinger posts are accepted. An encyclopedia should show "INFORMATION" about the person or subject matter. I simply posted 1 extra letter in the word Saviour, which reflected GAR's belief and view about the matter. To those of you with a reading comprehension level less than that of a 3rd grader this is called "information". It does not matter what the correct spelling is, it does not matter where she is from. The article is to reflect her "beliefs" about the matter. Even the person posting from IP 72.171.0.149 admits that GAR's view on the matter is the same as what I posted. The other person at ip 67.142.130.33 stated "It doesn't matter one

iota that GAR says Jesus Christ is her "Saviour". It does to "HER" and the article

is about "HER". The only difference is that if the facts, information, or ANYTHING else posted is not "Negative" toward her then it is deleted. Also if neither spelling

matters to you then why turn it into a debate? It matters to GAR!! What does NOT matter

or in this case SHOULD not matter are international spellings based on your location when they are contrary to the persons beliefs. While your giving spelling lessons go "teach" Led Zepplin and Def Leppard the correct way to spell, they also have Wikipedia pages!! Many (not all) KJV advocates use the 7 letter spelling because 7 is Gods number of completion, while 6 is the number of man. I would have hoped that DearPrudence would have seen that this was information about the authors beliefs and not a "spelling lesson in america", just more info. And no matter how unimportant you think it is, it is still useful info.

BEWARE- all KJV/GAR defenders, your posts will immediately and promptly be ridiculed,

belittled, deleted, and attacked no matter how true, factual and important you think it is, this "panel" of editors will judge what is important and necessary; unless of course it makes you look ignorant unlearned and foolish without their help. And a final note, when using scripture as a quote by GAR make sure to use the "American Standard Version" because she is american not British like the KJV(tongue in cheek) , and if in some instance the American Standard uses the British spelling for Saviour this must also be corrected. Romans 8:36b "As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." Slaughter away Wikipedia!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.213.209 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Linguisticsclass (a.k.a. purportedly "Gail Riplinger"), from Virginia/Durham, NC, KNOCK OFF THE SOCK PUPPETING, we know it is YOU! In fact, YOU sound just like YOU! 72.171.0.144 00:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you're a sockpuppet of Linguisticsclass or not, 71.111.213.209, but if you are, sockpuppetry is frowned upon in Wikipedia and may get you blocked from editing. Read WP:SOCK for further info. --DearPrudence 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to count the number of letters in the word Saviour/Savior, then let's go back to the original language the Bible was copied into, the GREEK and HEBREW languages. The Greek word for savior in the original Greek mss of the NT is soter. That has FIVE letters. You claim your spelling is correct because it has seven letters in it and that God's "number of completion" is seven. While this might be true of the number seven, your argument fails to defend your spelling. So, why does the biblical Greek word soter for the English translation of Savior have only FIVE letters? Where is your purported number of completion for the Greek spelling? Is the Greek not complete, then? The Hebrew spelling of savior in the OT, reah, is even worse--it only has FOUR letters. What about "Savior" in the Russian language...or, how about in the Chinese translations?? What if the translation of savior in those languages does not have seven letter? If the spelling happens to have six letters then it is a "SSSix letter" spelling and represents the antichrist? Show me that teaching in the Bible. Your ignorance makes you appear as an English language supremacist. Please keep your false teachings to yourself. The world does NOT need them. 72.171.0.144 01:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is the big chance for critics of Gail Riplinger to finally get an audience, and they are not going to let their big chance get away from them. They know the Wikipedia editors are not aware of the issues, so they can do their thing pretty much with an open field. You have to realize that Riplinger's critics are a bit deranged. They've been exposed as being dupes to 19th century spiritualists and 20th century liberal theologians and academics, and this is a bit too much for their vanity and pride to process. Rather than see themselves and the truth they have to lash back and defend their vanity and pride. If you really want to have fun with them ask them why they've yet to make a translation of the Bible that doesn't borrow from the hated Authorized Version as a foundation and in almost every rendering. The academics they fear and revere more than they fear and revere God obviously aren't capable of producing a translation of their Arian manuscripts where they are on their own. This is what the devil always does: he impersonates the light, while he is bringing evil... 75.26.194.163 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you, for once, address the factual material that has been presented which proves the lies and errors found in GAR's books, instead of resorting to the usual ad hominem and circular arguments?? The source page numbers and their actual words have been presented in this article. How much easier could it be made for you? Or do you just like to post to be seen because echoing the small minds you follow somehow makes you feel really BIG? Nothing you have said is based on truth. Furthermore, what shows you don't like the truth is your blathering on and falsely accusing others, just like GAR. The person who wrote this Wikipedia article knows what they are talking about because it is obvious they did their homework. For once, you should do the same. Try to enjoy your nice judgemental, legalistic, and mentally warped day. 72.171.0.144 01:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's all just step away from the article for a day or so, take a breath, and then continue arguing. :) I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the notice at the top of the article - keep a cool head! There's no need to call the other side "deranged", nor to imply that its supporters have anything to do with the devil. "Sides" should not even enter into it at all - do not let any biases you have affect the way you research and write the article! You can quote Bible verses at each other all you want, but it's not going to help the article. Be as clinical as possible. This is an encyclopaedia, and the way you write it should have nothing to do with how much you fear and revere God. --DearPrudence 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To the person at IP 72.171.0.144 you are so emotional that you can't read words. Read this VERY CAREFULLY- This is an encyclopedia, when I make a factual post, then the post should go UNCHANGED & UNDELETED. THIS is the problem, NOT hebrew or greek. You or someone like you deleted my 1 letter change that clearly reflected her beliefs. If she believes elephants are pink and has published that in her books, then I can post that. If I were to follow your LEAD then I would be deleting EVERY negative post that your crowd has made. You want to fight over 1 letter I added to 1 word in this article but you let liberal bible haters delete whole VERSES out of your bible, where are your priorities? Bashing GAR won't save the world but they do have a Saviour they can go to. Isn't it beautiful that the word "our" is at the end of "SaviOUR". My complaint is that the moderator "Dearprudence" was allowing factual information about the author (GAR) to be changed and then saying it was justified because "she is an american" and the american spelling should be used. This is unacceptable. Many KJV advocates (we prefer Authorized Bible advocates) cherish the intricate details of the AV. For us to express our beliefs or nuggets of gold we find in it is not "false teachings", you may not agree with the conclusion we arrive at but that is your OPINION. I would also like to inform YOU that I am not Gail, I am a dude and have never been to college. Having said that, for you to mistake me for a retired college professor that has authored over 6 college text books is a real compliment. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.217.165 (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, apparently you didn't read what I wrote about keeping a cool head. I did not make any edits in the article regarding the spelling of saviour/savior; I was merely responding to the topic on the talk page. I'm not pretending to know anything more than I do about the situation - in fact, I thought that the problem was a simple matter of spelling. I didn't know when I replied that it ran a little deeper than that. Why exactly am I being dragged into this? And when exactly did anyone accuse you of being Riplinger? The accusation of sockpuppetry was directed at another user. --DearPrudence 04:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Dearprudence- I am on a wireless network so my IP changes evertime I connect(sorry about this it's not intentional), so the comment "sockpuppetry" was directed at me. As far as dragging you into this, maybe my understanding of a moderator is incorrect. I thought you monitored and corrected unacceptable actions to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.217.165 (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing that up. And I'm actually not a moderator or administrator. :) I'm just another editor with the same abilities as you. --DearPrudence 05:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DearPrudence- Just curious, why are you sortof refereeing this page? You kindof just clean it up and that's about all, no real inputs per say. Just wondering what your intrest is in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.202.138 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I actually rewrote the entire article back in July. When I first discovered it, it was copied in whole from another website, so I fixed it up and have been watching it to make sure it doesn't slide into the same state it was in when I found it. This article was the first I'd ever heard of Riplinger, to be honest, which is why I avoid adding new information to the article unless I can find a good source for it. --DearPrudence 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
To IP 71.111.217.165, you cannot actually prove that anything negative has been posted about GAR in this article because none of it is untrue. Every single bit of it is backed up by documentation and FACT, which extremist KJO's never bother to check. KJOs are the ones who keep this argument going. They beat a dead horse because they can't or won't accept that GAR is not what she has made herself appear to be. They just accuse those who have done their homework of being bashers. That's the real reason that you cannot delete anything in this article because you cannot prove it is "negative." But, unforutately, in the world of GAR, following FACT has nothing to do with reality or the truth. Just like you said that if GAR believes in pink elephants and publishes them in her book then you can write about that. And you would want to?? With your own words you prove the point: it doesn't matter how dishonest or far off base from reality or truth that GAR and her teachings are, her followers will just accept it all and defend her. There an old phrase, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." GAR says it so therefore it's so, and let her get away with it. Your pink elephant comment is the same reasoning as saying, if GAR lies in her books and believes it's ok to lie about the facts then that's ok, too, we're gonna support her all the way. You hold this strange allegiance to GAR over the obedience you claim you have toward "God." For a "dude" you have been rather drawn in and saturated by the ridiculous teachings of GAR. Do you also talk about using your Bible as a "sword" to "take off some heads"? That's what GAR says, so it must be OK, then, right? It doesn't matter to you what Scripture has to say about that kind of talk? But, hey, whatever GAR says and whatever GAR does, it's OK. GAR is great, GAR is supreme; let's esteem GAR; GAR is never wrong.
Like other KJOs, you misunderstand correction of error, and debate, as "bashing" GAR. As far as KJOs are concernerd, GAR can bash those who have proved where her book if full of made-up nonsense and outright lies--they give her a free pass--and it's ok for GAR to be hateful toward those who bring her errors to attention, as good Bereans. That's typical of the KJO argument. Resort to accusing others of being unfair or mean. You point out that there is nothing"positive" representing GAR in this article, yet you have not suggested one positive thing about her. I could not read her book NABVs without finding multiple errors per page. That certainly isn't "positive." It's GAR who is "negative." I, like many others, have checked out what she claims and have found her to be dishonest and careless about it. She has had 13 years to correct the gross mistakes in NABVs and has neglected correcting them. To those who have done their homework, you are obviously misinformed. And what proves you are misinformed is that you have NOT checked GAR's teachings to verify if they are true and correct. If you had checked, you would know, just like the rest of us who have checked now know. FannyMay is correct in what she has documented here, with page numbers and source names, about the false teachings of GAR. I'm no longer taken in by GAR's false teachings as I once was. Reading her book at face value and just taking your trust in her for granted, you will not see how wrong she is. You have to utilize the sources GAR purportedly quotes from that are found at the back of her book. You need to check what she is saying with what the real sources are saying. Then you will see that she has twisted people's words, misquoted them, and misrepresented major facts throughout her book. She is making money off YOU and anyone else who just blindly trusts that she is telling the truth. How I wish more would see it.
Tell you what, you go and verify the information FannyMay has added to this article; you get the source books GAR claims she qouted from and then read the source next to the quotes GAR claims in her books that she has accurately quoted. THEN you can come on here and accuse people here of being "negative." Until then, please stop wasting time and space here. 67.142.130.11 15:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of the article

I think we all agree that it is important to stick with the facts, which when I first observed this article, wasn't represented by the theme of things. I will admit personally as a follower of Jesus Christ I cannot follow falsehood, which is why I cannot endorse Gail Riplinger. I see many who do, who always push the "evidence" in her book, but when confronted with it, just make the claim that you are of the devil. Somebody wrote earlier that "This is what the devil always does: he impersonates the light, while he is bringing evil...". Well, that could easily be applied to Gail Riplinger as well. The God I worship is a God of truth and doesn't hide behind an author with "new revelation" that has to be accepted without question. If you are open to discuss the facts, than great. If not, please do not bother even discussing things, as it would be fruitless. So please, if you are going to discuss something, don't name call, bash, or even debate. This is an encyclopedia discussion page, not a message board. We are here to discuss "facts", not to defend or ridicule anyone.

With that being said if anybody has something positive about Gail Riplinger that can be verified, then please feel free to add it. If she has donated or is affiliated with any charities, then please add that information to this article. This is an article about Gail Riplinger for those who want to know the facts about her.

The reason this article seems to bash her is that she is has reached a semi-celebrity status, and has done so through her publications. It can be verified that she has misquoted sources and has factual errors in the books. I will not ask you to blindly accept it, but ask you to check for yourself, as this is what should only be allowed. I understand that most of the editors of this article are going to be biased one way or the other. I just ask that whatever you add, that it doesn't represent that bias. If you have FACTS that are in support of her, then put them in. The more information the better. I am a very spiritual person, but I realize that this is not the forum to be discussing those issues. So I ask that we all refrain from name calling and personal attacks on Gail and each other. To the supporters of Gail Riplinger, do not post on her that this is an attack or that we are all wrong. If there is anything in this article that can be shown to be in error, then please bring it to attention. Let us all just stick to factual truth. This page is a discussion, where questions and topics are "discussed", not personal opinions argued. RyanDaniel 02:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have said. The only thing, however, is that bias is something universal. Everyone is biased about/toward something, or maybe many things. However, when bias is based on factual discovery and objective truth, the result of a truth-seeker is to hold to that bias. It becomes a conviction. When there is bias based only on opinion, with no fact or objectives to back it, then it is empty and proves little. It appears that those editors who have done the work themselves and checked Riplinger's material stand on the side of truth. Of course this seems biased to those who only defend her on the basis of trust alone, never having taken the time to find out if her book is based on truth. As someone who has checked on the reports of "two divorces", I did my part and found out that, yes, the information is 100% factual. I can say that I know because I checked. Personally, I have spent a lot of time, as others have, verifying Riplinger's claims and quotations with the original sources. I am relieved when I find only one error on a page in her book, which is not very often. Right now, I am researching chapter 30 of New Age Bible Versions. I own a majority of Westcott and Hort books in my library, as well as close access to many of the other books from which she cites. Because I care about the truth and don't like to see people fooled by fraud, I have chosen to spend time investigating Riplinger's claims, because I want to know the truth. As a Christian, I want to know that what I might trust in is based on a foundation of truth. The main point here is that only those who have done the work to check if what she says is really accurate and true have a right to write anything objective here about Riplinger. To post anything untrue or non-objective would be dishonest and possibly libelous, so that is why the editors who have worked on this article have been careful to research every subject placed into it. Her followers also need to care about posting things that are not true, and if they have not verified what she has written in her books with the actual sources, etc., then they are not able to honestly say whether they truly know that what they write about her here is fact. To just say "I trust Riplinger, therefore I believe Riplinger" is not enough. People who followed such individuals as Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones, etc. believed the same way and in their minds they really convinced themselves that they were right, because no one bothered to check them out first and weigh their false and grandiose claims. These people would have amounted to very little without followers that just blindly trusted them. In case someone wants to argue that Riplinger is not the same thing as Hitler, etc., remember what kind of mess she has made in many churches. The outcome and the effect on people is still the same, no matter how small it seems.67.47.34.221 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Lucifer" vs. "Morning Star"

Riplinger ignores the proper translation from Hebrew into English in her books and examples, as well as the use of the Latin Vulgate Bible by the KJV translators for their translation of Isaiah 14:12. In the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text) the correct word is (and has always been) "heylel," which in Hebrew refers to the "morning star." In the late 400s, Jerome translated "heylel" as the Latin word "Lucifer" since it was the closest rendering he could find to explain the brightness being explained in the allegory of the morning star, the planet now called "Venus," which is known to be quite bright in the sky. The KJV translators, for reasons not fully known, decided to keep the Latin rendering "Lucifer" in the English Bible instead of literally translating it as they did most of the thousands of other words in the KJV. They were very fond of Latin and spoke it fluently, which could be part of the reason they kept it. However, it is a popular misunderstanding, carried over many generations, that "Lucifer" is a proper name. It is not. It is a noun that is also used as an adjective in Isaiah 14:12. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Satan's name was ever Lucifer. When Isaiah 14:12 is read in proper context with the rest of chapter 14, in verse 4 it is explained that it was a message meant for the King of Babylon, most likely Nebuchadnezzar since he was warned in the book of Daniel that he would be brought down for the wicked things he had done. Chapter 14 has been used as a secondary or figurative address to Satan, but it is first and foremost a direct address to the King of Babylon.

No one can prove one English version of the Bible is any worse than any other or more wrong or inaccurate than another by simply comparing it to the KJV or any other English Bible. The KJV, just as any other Bible version, is not the standard of comparison for what Bibles are "right" and what Bibles are "wrong." If this were so then the work of textual comparison, and studying the original languages, would not be necessary for Bible translation. If anyone believes that the KJV translators believed that their translation was better, more pure, or more "Holy" than any other English Bibles, please read the Translators' "Letter to the Reader" (written by KJV translator Miles Smith) found in the Preface of the Cambridge King James Bible.

Quoting directly from Riplinger's teachings as proof that those teachings are correct or accurate is not ample resourcing. Proof that her teachings are correct must be backed up with concrete, objective evidence. Just saying, "In her book, Riplinger says..." is not enough. Original sources that back her work and prove it as true must be used in an encyclopedia.FannyMay (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Talk page archival

Is anyone opposed to my archiving the talk page? It's quite long now and is becoming a bit difficult to navigate. I would of course leave any current discussions.

If no one opposes the archival by the end of the week, I'll do it on Sunday. --DearPrudence (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.