Talk:Michael Peter Woroniecki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Encounter of Woroniecki at Virginia Tech 10/3/2004

POV? Seems a little skewed. Although I just saw some of his "people" at the VT/WVU game this weekend and can't say I agree with them at all. Also there needs to be some subject/verb agreement clean up in this article. Maybe when I get a minute? MaxPower 15:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Question about scare quotes, 10/22/2004

Should "self-crucifying lifestyle" be put in scare quotes? The meaning is pretty clear to me, but I grew up hearing crucify used metaphorically; seems to me like some readers might get the impression that he literally crucifies himself. ThePedanticPrick 23:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Response to ThePentanticPrick on scare quotes, 10/22/2004

"Self-crucifying lifestyle" is "loaded language" cult terminology. These words have a unique meaning to Woroniecki's theology as compared to other Christian sects. It means to live a life of suffering in obedience to God's law in order to elicit resurrection life. It is a real-time experience of dying to self and living to God. I was implying with the quotes that this was Woroniecki's personal interpretation of that phrase. In most sects, to be crucified with Christ is an act that took place in A.D. 28 when you believe in the present without self-righteous works of the law.

I have addressed you concern with a carifying revision.

Thanks for your interest. Do you think the article is becoming more NPOV with the references, other aspects of blame in the tragedy and defenses Woroniecki has made in denying responsibility? 22 Oct 2004


[edit] Response to MaxPower, Rewritten to reflect NPOV, 10/23/2004

I was not aware of the policy of NPOV and have since tried to modify the article to include different points of view and general references. I feel this damages the conciseness I desired for this entry, but I would rather not the article appear biased. I also examined words and claims that I personally know are true from private conversations with ex-followers and a consensus of about 100 hours of audio tapes I have examined from the preachers teachings but might create the appearance of non-neutrality, for example "delusion" was changed to "allusion" regarding Woroniecki's parallel between himself and Noah, and "Marriages have been divided" to a more gentle wording used in the source text as "marriages have been tested" which is the language used by author Susan O'Malley in her book about the Yates tragedy. 23 Oct 2004


[edit] Response to Kade's "may not be factually supported" tag on 5/16/2005, 6/14/2005

The material in the article is supported from material linked and referenced at the end of the article. There are also tape excerpts of Michael Woroniecki at an ex-follower's website supporting facts in the entry, particularly excerpts from the mentioned video. Can you be more specific about any facts being unsupported?


[edit] Good article, 10/23/2005

I just had an experience with a portion of the Woroniecki crew at the university I attend, and I can verify that the contents of this article -at least the contents pertaining to the Woroniecki's theology- are accurate. I was told that attending church is a sin and that my choice to pursue a college degree guarantees I am going to hell. They're not exactly objective-minded regarding their views; after reminding one of the girls the apostle Paul was a lawyer, she simply walked away.

I felt the need to add this because I am a Christian student (quite a conservative Christian student, I might add) and I believe people like this give us a bad name. Downright meanspirited and gratuitously abusive people. The Phelps clan (God Hates Fags) is kindhearted compared to the Woronieckis. They even give crackpots a bad name.

If you are seeking authentic, Biblical Christianity, run, don't walk, run away from the Woronieckis.

[edit] Removal of Kade's tag 1/22/2006

I left the tag Kade inserted in the article for over 7 months waiting for a response to the my question to him requesting specific examples of factual inaccuracies. Having no response from him or any other reader, and the fact that the article is well supported with the documentation referenced, I'm removing the tag.

In addition, the entry is now further documented by 7 articles from 3 university newspapers revealing the lawless, harassing nature of this so called evangelist and several of his key doctrines about college, the churches and his belief that "All are headed for hell." (Updated 1/29/2006)

[edit] Revision to talk page, 1/24/2006

Due to an honest misreading of the time order of these entries, a recent surveyor of this page replaced the POV check tag in the main body of this article not realizing the article had already been adjusted to reflect NPOV over 15 months ago.

Sometime after the revision, The POV tag was moved to this talk page by another participant, and it remained to give readers an opportunity to examine the major NPOV overhauling of this article. With that having been done, I am removing the POV check since the problem has apparently been properly addressed.

I have also restructured this talk page with headline text format and placed the entries in sequential order from oldest to newest to prevent further confusion in the future.


[edit] Feb. 2, 2006 edit

An unregistered user made an unexplained and unsupported edit to the introductory portion of this article. The purpose of that introductory section is to briefly characterize and identify the preacher as has been described by many professional media sources. Deleted were the terms "itinerant, verbally abrasive, 'fire and brimstone' "The editor also changed "many" professional media sources to "some."

Most if not all the articles I have read from college universities decribe this preacher as being very brazen to the point of harassment. Some of those articles are referenced at the bottom of the main article. This preacher was seen interviewed on ABC Good Morning America and NBC Dateline back in 2002. The attempt was made by each program to point out that the preacher's badgering character and condemnation contributed negatively to Andrea Yates mental decline. KTRK-ABC Houston and the Houston Chronicle covered the Yates tragedy very closely and also covered the abusive character of the preacher, particularly when he was banned from his hometown by the DA as a plea bargain in the case where he allegedly harrassed a woman to tears who was waiting in line to buy tickets for the Shriner circus and when he condemned an obviously ill Andrea Yates in 1998 that she was going to hell. Susan O'Malley and Suzy Spencer, the two authors who have investigatewd the preacher also characterize him this way. There is even an inclusion of Michael Woroniecki in a book called: The Big Bad Book of Mike. (I leave the reader to figure out the implication). Most newspapers reporting on the Yates case carried similar stories on the preacher. That is a matter of record.

The only media sources that I have ever seen that put Woroniecki in a positive light are the student newspaper of Central Michigan University where Woroniecki went to school (May 2002 issue, Michael Woroniecki preaches Jesus not Murder), and articles written by his documented elementary school buddie Steve Grinzcel of the Grand Rapids Press, obviously biased sources. Woroniecki once commented on one of his audio tapes that he grew up with Grinzcel, and met him in Spain during the 1992 Olympics, where Grinzcel is said to have told him that his "life was an oddessy." At least Grinzcel approached his story from a NPOV style.

Time magazine and Newsweek both looked into the bizarre character and influence of this preacher. Woroniecki himself complained that the "media" (generically used) was conspiring against him (O'Malley,p. 97). The "Christian rhetoric" he said they used were merely reports of his own beratings bizarre teachings and that had filled Yates' delusions and became part of the medical and trial record.

Rusty Yates himself has expressed to me how the majority of the media that comes to him tries to approach the cause of the tragedy as being sourced by the preacher and the lifestyle he imposed with his teachings. The majority of the media reporting on the Yates preacher does indeed report the minister as being psychologically abusive, and that this contributed to the mental decline of Andrea Yates.

[edit] POV rewrite

While it looks like that this article has gone through some POV wrangling, I still think that it has some POV statements and needs some restructuring. The problem is the authors of the article are clearly against Woroniecki and do not allow for neutral presentation of his views.

Statements like:

"As reported in many articles from the student newspapers of college campuses throughout the nation, Woroniecki preaches that seeking a college education is a sin, that working is part of the curse, and to have a job proves you are under the curse of Adam and Eve and headed for hell, despite the fact that Woroniecki himself sought a bachelors and masters degree all the while he claims to have been a Christian, pundits point out."

(Comment: These are all facts that have the support of 25 years of college newspaper reporting. There will soon be more articles available from the 80s, but many such articles are linked at an exer's site.)

"Woroniecki reads into "Hope for the Flowers" an unintended gospel message... "

(Comment: This is true. The woman who wrote the book is an environmentalist who never intended a Christian message.)

"Many of Woroniecki's teachings sound evangelically fundamentalist and mainstream, e.g., Jesus is God, Jesus is soon to return in judgment of hellfire and salvation is by faith through grace, not by works. However, several ex-followers warn that if Woroniecki really believed Jesus was God, he would do as Jesus says..."

(Comment: He really says things that are evangelically accurate, but if you review his media, you find blatant contradictions in his teaching that negate those evangelically sound ones. That is why the paragraph reads this way, showing that he does teach sound doctrine, but that his ex-followers warn that it's merely superficial.)

Each paragraph presents his views and then shows why they are wrong or contradictory. This does not need to be the case.--Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(Comment: Recommend a revision example and I'll revise the article with that pattern in mind.)

[edit] Example revisions

Thank you for the reply, but consider signing in and signing your responses so I know whom I am talking with. I agree that most of the stuff is probably factually accurate, but that doesn't mean that the portrayal has to be so blindingly against him. Please see NPOV. I'll just go with the first statement:

"As reported in many articles from the student newspapers of college campuses throughout the nation, Woroniecki preaches that seeking a college education is a sin, that working is part of the curse, and to have a job proves' you are under the curse of Adam and Eve and headed for hell, despite the fact that Woroniecki himself sought a bachelors and masters degree all the while he claims to have been a Christian, pundits point out. Although his children work menial minimum wage jobs when they are not on their preaching rounds, Woroniecki explains this is because it is solely for the sake of preaching the gospel. Woroniecki explains that he is no longer under the curse and that now, "God provides." Some of his ex-followers expose Woroniecki's doctrine as a cult tactic used to manipulate his follower into a weaker, isolated position of subservience to his gospel agenda, citing that if he is no longer under the curse as he says, then why is he still aging towards death, which is also a consequence of the curse?"

This would be much better worded something like...
Woroniecki holds controversial views including that college education is a sin [citation needed], working is part of the curse of Adam and Eve [citation needed]. [The fact that it is reported by college newspapers is not relevant, but they should be cited as the source] He also states that having a job proves that you are under the curse of Adam and Eve and headed for hell. [Not everyone knows what the "curse of Adam" is, and it should be linked]
Despite these claims his children work minimum wage jobs to support the ministry and Woroniecki sought a bachelors and masters degree. [Removed menial (how do you know it is menial) and consolidated criticism into a single line]. Some critics including ex-followers claim that Woroneicki's doctrine isolates and manipulates followers into following his own gospel agenda. [The word "expose" is problematic, and the remaining text appears to be from a larger theological arguement that many people wouldn't know about].
"Woroniecki reads into "Hope for the Flowers" an unintended gospel message that in order to find salvation, one must isolate and endure hardship by coming out of the churches, hating your family, forsaking career and academic pursuits, fleeing the materialism inherent in the "yuppie" lifestyle, resisting the temptation to become married, endure humiliation and suffering from persecutions and preach at your place of employment until ready to leave it and assume the capacity of his prophetically itinerant calling, just as he has trained his own children to do."
(Comment: This is true. The woman who wrote the book is an environmentalist who never intended a Christian message.)
Agreed but something like...
Woroniecki interpreted the enivormentalist book "Hope for the Flowers" as a message about salvation. He believes in order to find salvation one must isolate themselves from previous social and religious ties as well as abandon his or her career. [This is much less accusatory but still accurate. Wikipedia is not the place to demonize someone. Even articles about Hitler must be accurate. Step back a few steps and think about what he does not what you think of him] --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Comment on "Factual Inaccuracies"

The problem many seem to be having is that Michael Woroniecki's views are so extreme that reporting them factually strains the reporters' credibility.

Having been in the cult, seen him preach, read his tracts, it is very accurate to say that Michael Woroniecki condemns to hell anyone who (a.) goes to church (b.) goes to college or (c.) pursues a career.

He supports these ideas from scripture: (a.) "Come out of her, my people." Rev. 13 (b.)(c.) "Love not the world" -- John.

The amazing thing about Michael is this though: were you to leave church, leave college, stop pursuing a career, he would still condemn you to hell. He usually ends up simply saying that "You are not following Jesus" and finds some reason to support this claim.

This modus operandi is a confirmed fact by ex-followers, described at the sites mentioned at the bottom of the wiki entry. The Yates, for example, did nearly everything in their power to emulate the Woroniecki's: stop attending church, home school, gave their children Bible names, lived out of a van... But since Rusty couldn't find the faith to quit his NASA job, Michael condemned the Yates to hell. This fact Michael himself warned of in his Good Morning America interview.

Some things are nearly too incredible to be true. Unfortunately, the preaching rhetoric and modus operandi of Michael Woroniecki and his children fall into that category.


[edit] Note to POV Revisions

Thank you for your recommendations on NPOV revisions to this article. The problem in the past has been that people would read the article, tag it NPOV and move on without offering any input on how to go about making changes. You did, and I will take all you said into consideration.

You obviously write extremely well, and I envy that quality. However, before I engage in a major overhaul of this article, I need to be able to differentiate between demonizing someone and accurately reporting the truth.

I look forward to your reply.Thomas Anderson 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than engaging in a long task of supporting with citations statements made by me in this article (the blp tag was added sometime after I posted it, I'm just going to remove the content. It is sufficient to say that I needed information on how to convey the negative material about this preacher without appearing to "demonize him." Thomas Anderson 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pls. stick to the facts

This guy has a huge "message" that is probably not encyclopedic. Please stay focused on the facts of this man's life: who, what, when, where. Getting into "why" makes the article twice as big as it should be. -- 67.116.254.9 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Let us keeps this to a "biography" format. It does not take the reader long to figure out that this guy has a "downer" message. That downer message got to Yates. Those are the facts. Now let us still to other facts: dates and places. If somebody wants to go an write a detailed "Woroniecki dogma" article and argue that it is notable, then let them try — but it should be a separate article. -- 67.116.254.9 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, where does this "fact" come from? "He left for the city of Atlanta, Georgia where high volume street preaching was permitted with the provision a bullhorn is not used." What do you mean "where high volume street preaching was permitted"? It's permitted in all public places. 136.181.195.45 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons Woroniecki was arrested in Grand Rapids was because he was too loud, which is a disturbing the peace misdemeanor. Apparently then, it is illegal to disrupt the activities of others with loud speech in Grand Rapids. On the other hand, Atlanta allows such high volume speech provided a bullhorn is not used. Grand Rapids Press, 1981

[edit] Reply to Last Entry

Thank you for making the labored revisions. You obviously handled it better than I would have, since I'm not familiar with the NPOV format. While the original "facts" are accurate, I believe what you are saying is that the focuse should be on factual details, not details of "why." I was going to take a shot at revising the article, but I became to swamped with the process of collecting, imaging and uploading documentation on this preacher, so that I could more easily footnote any seemingly incredual facts I originally reported on.Thomas Anderson 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "See Also" Revisions

This section was formerly deleted on the basis the article made no reference to Woroniecki's religion being a cult. Since Countercult.com, an independent, major cult authority stated the fact in their article on him that ministers or groups like Woroniecki may be or become a cult and/or exibit the charateristics of cults and its leaders, I included the quote in the article and replaced the internal links with Cult and Cult checklist so that people can decide for themselves based on the referenced articles and websites, if Woroniecki's religious movement is a cult.

However, after reviewing Destructive cult, I removed it because Woroniecki hasn't directly or intentionally killed anyone (yet) as far as I can tell, even though Andrea's delusions and actions were based on the logical outcome of his teaching ministry toward her (see article for assertions and citations). Becoming a Destructive cult may become a future eventuality for the Woronieckis, though, as Mr. Woroniecki has openly fantasized about a martyr's death for his family. (Michael Woroniecki, Audio Ministry, 1992 Audio excerpt) Thomas Anderson 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Citations

I've mostly finished updating the article with source material, mostly from Woroniecki's own tape and tract archive, newspapers, and bigraphical books, especially in places where there is negative material. I am collecting more source links, and I will soon be going over the article again to make sure I've left no stone unturned. I should be probably finished with sourcing in a few more days. Thomas Anderson 00:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woroniecki's Influence on Andrea Yates (formerly: Yates Case)

On or about Nov. 1, 2006, someone introduced a paragragh of documented information concerning the Andrea Yates case to the "Yates Case" section of this article. While the information concerning Saeed and Rusty Yates bears tremendously on the severity of Andrea's illness and why she was able to act on her delusions, it deviates from the focus of the article which is the biography of Michael Woroniecki and what his contributions to Andrea's actions were.

This article once tried to include all facets of why Andrea Yates killed her children in order to put Woroniecki's contributions in context, (psychiatric bungling, negligent and willful husband, etc.) but it made the article much longer than it should otherwise be. When the article was overhauled for NPOV by a well educated and seasoned writer, much of the original material discussing other elements of the case were eliminated by him/her, leaving only aspects of Woroniecki's influence on Yates intact. I agree with the editor's decision to leave out the "whys" of the case (see above in "Pls. stick to the facts"). I only disagree with his/her heading of "Yates case," as I feared it would invite discussion that focuses on Yates rather than Woroniecki, and so it finally did--thus I revised the heading to keep the subject matter focused on the preacher. The biography should be about Woroniecki and his life, as it also relates to hers, not Yates' life as it involves the actions of others.

That's not to say Woroniecki was the only contributing factor to Andrea's disease, emotional and hormonal disposition, delusions or actions, but those facets are better introduced into the Andrea Pia Yates entry which is linked from this article. Thomas Anderson 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANother article regarding Woroniecki.

I just wanted to give a link to the college article we wrote when Michael Woroniecki visited the Weber State Campus. Here's the Link [1] I hope it helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.36.66.165 (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Question

I would like to know if Woroniecki has any relationship with the CIA, FBI or MKULTRA?

Very funny. When Woroniecki isn't haranguing sinners on his fall campus tours, he lives in a trailer park in Henderson, NV, which is about 20-40 miles south of Area 51, though. This relationship is coincidental, as the most likely reason he lives in NV is because there are no state taxes on his children's income, which according to ex-disciples of his (see main article for website links) has been the central support of his ministry since having been connected to Andrea Yates by the media in 2002. His kids have worked at Chuck E. Cheese's and a Home Depot in Las Vegas in recent years, his wife worked for a time at KMart as a register clerk, and he worked at Home Depot but was allegedly fired after two weeks.72.84.66.147 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you would like to know? After all, if they told you, they might have to kill you...Eaglizard 07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Material

I have deleted most of the first section on the grounds that the parts that weren't actually POV were quotes from sources describing generic traits of cults and cult leaders, not specifically about Mr. Woroniecki. However, I agree that his movement might have the potential to be a cult (although it can hardly be called a "movement"). However, the removed material was not appropriate, especially for such a prominent placement in the article. (For the curious, I left said paragraph commented out in the text, so go have a look). Eaglizard 08:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotes were from an unbiased cult site's page about Woroniecki, and they were implying his potentiality as a cult with them. That's neither here or there, though. I like the way you eloquently encapsulated the idea into one sentence. Keep it that way. Thomas Anderson 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph Getting Very Ugly

I removed the phrase "notoriously known", since it is just a bit redundant, I think, and it's repetitive, too, as well. ;)

roger that, but notorious is better than just known, because the predominant view, even by Woroniecki, is that he is infamous because of it Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also reworded the first 'graph a bit... we're swinging back towards POV I think, a rather easy thing to do here, I admit, but we're better than that, now aren't we? :^)

No, the quotes clearly imply what you added--the quote is from the cited article and implies how he has been described. What you added makes the sentence wordy and redundant in light of the quotation and reference.
Woroniecki calls himself "Mike War," because of his "warlike" character. "Belligerent" means warlike and agressive. This is not a slanderous POV characterization. It is an accurate jouranlistic representation of what media in Grand Rapids observed for over 18 months and what he has demonstrated with his own 1994 video video --Woroniecki doesn't deny his tactics are aggressive or violent. He compares his tactics to the way a fireman goes into a burning house and forcefully removes people, not asking them nicely to come out or trying to reason with them. videoThomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I'd like to register my objections to what has become of the first paragraph of this article ... not the actual text, but the "source text". With all those (reasonably unnecessary) lengthy quotes from cites (which users do not see anyways), the paragraph has gotten almost unbearably difficult to edit properly. I also happen to think all those superscripts make the 'graph look ugly, too, as users see it, but that's just MHO. Thing is, I don't feel like mucking about with it tonite.

I thought it would be helpful to delete the 2k of archived POV deletion you placed in the body of the 1st paragragh's editing text, so I did. I'm satified the archived text doesn't need to be there after the wonderful encapsulation you made to replace it. That should lighten things up a bit.Thomas Anderson 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a biographical article of a living person. If you remove those seemingly "unnecessary" quotes, someone will remove the referenced content in the main body of the bio basing it on lack of supportive information (especially in the case of a purchasable transcript from ABC which is no longer accessible online), and reinserting that info and explaining why this was done is a hassle. The quotations are mainly in the footnotes because it would make the visible article too cumbersome to be in the main body. It also allows the reader to verify the content of the citation, particularly in potentially libelous cases where the citation is not available on line. That is what footnotes are for, clarification.
Remember, Woroniecki is a VERY unusual, controversial public figure, and it is reasonable to expect many citations as Wiki encourages, especially when many of the things Woroniecki has "allegedly" done are quite browlifting, like using multiple aliases, pushing a police officer, acting provocative and belligerent and "allegedly" causing a woman to break down in tears as a result of being singled out and followed down a Grand Rapids street, even informing the delusions of a child killer. (These allegations are documented in the main article.) Wiki definitely suggests using multiple citations for an assertion like the last allegation, and so it has. It's a potentially libelous statement that has sound, multiple source verification. Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a final note, for Thomas Anderson, do you really think "character" is an appropriate word to introduce there?

Yes--his exfollowers do describe him as abusive, delusional, narcissistic, and having a moral code that is extremely flexible and self determined.
Abusive--http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/TexasAM.html http://hometown.aol.com/tensiontally/predator.html http://hometown.aol.com/niek0/suicide.html http://hometown.aol.com/niek0/destroyer.html http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/advice.html http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/methods.html http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/tactics.html
Delusional--http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/Noah.html
Narcissistic--http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/photo.html http://hometown.aol.com/tensiontally/hellbullies.html
Variable morals--http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/cash.html (see "Jacob Doctrine")
If you also look at the cult expert website at Countercult.com, you will see his behavior while evangelizing was described as "despicable," and his character and doctrine are questioned as dangerous (to at least to one woman), even suggesting the possiblity of eventually or already having degenerated into demonstrating cult-like teaching and behavior.Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I understand what you're going for, of course, but it seems a stretch to say that the sources have stated his character is "cult-like and dangerous". I'm sure they consider it that, as do I, but have they really come out and attacked his character? Don't they mostly stick to attacking his absurd doctrines?

That's only half of it. They attack both in full measure. This is a very carefully researched and documented article. Please be careful when moving material around or inserting words. It can radically change the intended meaning of the information. Sometimes your brilliant changes blow me away, and I wonder how you did that because it's so perfect. Sometimes the rework I have to do to repair the article blows me away, haha!
Also, points of POV require careful examination of the sources. The story of Woroniecki's arrest in Casablanca and his tumble with Spanish police officers came almost verbatim right out of the video documented in the Yates trial. I don't think Woroniecki is trying to slander himself.
As a more specific example, you interjected the word "allegedly" in: "In 1995, he and his family preached at Casablanca, Morocco, where they allegedly incited a riot of angry Muslims, resulting in the family's arrest." This was unnecessary, as the source is verifiably Woroniecki's own accounting of the incident as told to a newsreporter of the Grand Rapids Press, who is also a friendly former schoolmate of Woroniecki's, and who will respond to Woroniecki's request to do an "exclusive interview." (see material referenced to 6 and 10. Point is, Woroniecki trusts Grinzcel above the entire US media to give what he deems a fair interview.
It's also verifiable through the video documented at the final Yates trial where Woroniecki says exactly this:
"CASABLANCA CHRISTIANS - USA TODAY (European edition distributed in Spain, June 2, 1995) A US missionary couple and their six children were arrested in Morocco after they marched down the main street with a large cross, distributing leaflets preaching Christ. A duty officer at the United States Embassy in Casablanca said Michael (they spelled my name wrong) Woroneki and his family had been released. Moroccan law makes it an offense to preach religions other than Islam, the state religion, Le Daily Opin-ion, (which is a French paper in Morocco) said the Oregon family caused a near riot when they were chased by angry Moroccans who took offense at the leaflets proclaiming Jesus - the Son of God." Woroniecki does not disagree with the article. In fact, the video shows he's elated with it.
I might add that further into the segment of the video, it becomes clear what actually set off the "near riot." Woroniecki called Jesus Christ "Allah." No kidding. It's no wonder the anrgy Muslims rocked his van and broke out its windows, as the Grand Rapids Press article reported.
If you listen to the media excerpt from the video in the case where he pushed the Spanish police officer, you will find an obvious point not mentioned in the bio, that he is "spiritually" justifying those violent/provocative behaviors. I didn't think it was important to delve that far into Woroniecki's bizarre character for POV reasons since it is sufficient to document the facts of his belligerent style/character, not explain the why.
These are notable events of his preaching career, and Woroniecki himself is very proud of these moments, as he ocassionally repeats these stories in his tracts and to the media. It's important that people accurately understand his "belligerent style." I've added nothing to his report of these incidents, and kept out POV analysis of why he did these things.Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But, if you're really happy with it, it's not an issue for me either way, really. Eaglizard 10:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's him in a nutshell. Thomas Anderson 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)