Talk:Rob Bell

Disambiguation

Please note that this page will, eventually, have to become a disambiguation page, since there is also a pro baseball pitcher with the same name, and possibly others as well. ^BlankVerse 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Discuss

Added the image at the top asking for edits to be discussed here. I just want to keep everyone on the same page. Thanks. --Derek Spalla 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

151.199.175.100 - if you're going to disagree with my warning box at the top of the article, you should at least log in and it discuss it here. This is exactly the reason why I posted the warning in the first place.--Derek Spalla 10:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

It should be included that Bell demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of string theory. His use of it in in "Everything is Spiritual" completely misrepresents the theory, it's basis and it's conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.116.37 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources?--Lyonscc (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Added another perspective on the Apprising Ministries links.

--Casaubonian 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made the criticisms more neutral - used words such as 'claimed. I also removed the Brian Maclaren paragraph - this seemed like a irrelavance as it was more about Brian Maclaren than Rob Bell, the only reference being that he preaced at Rob Bell's church.

I have made the language more neutral, added some citations (including one for and one against the 'Eastern' comment) and shortened the Apprising Ministries link to just a sentence. The existing paragraph wasn't neutral in language, attacking the subject rather than informing. Casaubonian 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

This section needs some citations for those items listed, otherwise it's just fantasy instead of true facts.--Derek Spalla 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

Added Sex God to the list since it was mentioned in the Other Projects section and can be found on Zondervan's website about Rob Bell--Derek Spalla 12:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I removed the "more resources" link that went to Christian book distributors. Wikipedia policy in the Links normally to be avoided section: #8 Bookstore sites; instead, use the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. See the Wikipedia External Links policy if in doubt. --Derek Spalla 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Added the Christianity Today article by Andy Crouch. It seems to fit in line with the article from BeliefNet.--Derek Spalla 12:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

I am confused - why are there supposed quotes from Rob Bell from a book not written by him that is a satirical take on the religious right? Can these quotes be authenticated at all or are they made up? When and where did Rob say those things? --Virgil Vaduva 02:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They are legitimate quotes from an interview the author conducted with Rob Bell

Inaccurate quotes

To the anon editor - if you would please authenticate the quotes you keep posting, perhaps that would help with the constructive creation of this article. Referencing obscure websites does not qualify as quotation material in my book, so could you perhaps provide more evidence of where and when these quotes appeared?

--Virgil Vaduva 20:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph about "Velvet Elvis"

I would like to know why my suggested revision has been changed. I have here added the extra phrase "... to live with great passion and conviction" to the quote from the book. (Can anyone verify that this is an actual quote, by the way?) The reason I suggested this edit is because the phrase "Amazing story" is not neutral.

Thank you. Mathteacher1729 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph could probably be cleaned up grammatically, as well as made more neutral. (Speficially, remove the "...tells an amazing story" part and replace with "tells the story of.."

Rob Bell, in his recent book, "Velvet Elvis", tells an amazing story of how he envisions the walk a Christian takes in life. "The challenge he says, is to live with great passion and conviction, remaining open and flexible, aware that this life is not the last painting.

Possible re-write suggestion:

In Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, Rob Bell explains his vision of the Christian Life. "The challenge," he says "is to live with great passion and conviction, remaining open and flexible, aware that this life is not the last painting."

Mathteacher1729 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms links

I don't agree with everything on the Apprising Ministries website but at least it provides another perspective on what many evangelical Christians consider the heterodox postmodern beliefs of Rob Bell. Many quotes from this site were removed in the past which is reasonable as they carry a biased opinion. I think having a link to the site without including material directly in the bio is reasonable .

70.188.25.24 01:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• • It is not reasonable - this article is an article about Rob Bell, not a repository of links and sites devoted to slandering him and those associated with him. What quotes have been removed as biased opinions? --Virgil Vaduva 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

well, looking at the history, you have systematically expunged anything remotely critical of him. I think one link to a different viewpoint than yours and appropriately labeled in the "Criticism" section is ok. 70.188.25.24 06:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I have repeatedly asked that you register for a Wikipedia account and use the discussion page to further the development of the article, you have refused to do so. Only after I repeatedly undid your edits you have chosen the course of discussion. I have not systematically expunged ANYTHING critical of Rob Bell. I have removed links which are obviously SPAM or efforts to slander or advertise slanderous websites regarding the article. Before you continue to edit, I highly recommend that (1) you create an account and participate as a regular user - anonymous edits are hardly credible here and (2) read What Wikipedia is not which will help you better understand that Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote your ideology or a battleground for you to fight ideological wars. This purpose of an article is to disseminate information on a specific topic or person. Your edits are hardly improving the article; I will continue to "expunge" your edits as long as you do not take a constructive approach to the development of the article. --Virgil Vaduva 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I reread the article and agree with you that you haven't expunged all critical material. I disagree that the apprising ministry website is slanderous but I'll leave the link off. 70.188.25.24 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Much better edit - thanks for cooperating. I think the critical quotes are very appropriate and well placed, however Bell never publicly claim to be associated with the emergent church movement so I removed part of the introductory paragraph. If you can find a quote that places him in that movement we can definitely reach an agreement to change the article accordingly. I am glad to see we are coming to some a place where we can reach some constructive agreement. --Virgil Vaduva 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I included references for every thing that I added. There is a link to Christianity Today that discusses Rob Bell and the Mars Hills Church which he leads as part of the emerging church movement. 70.188.25.24 12:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry but I cannot agree with that paragraph as it was worded. There are two major problems with it:

1. Bell has NEVER identified himself as being part of the emergent movement (there was no citation provided for this as I've asked and the Christianity Today link doesn't mention anything about this) 2. A link to a blog hardly is a reliable source for Bell encouraging church members to practice eastern religions.

I was under the impression that we can come to an agreement of non-biased edits. This is not a place to criticize Rob Bell or to unveil controversial stuff about him. Please create a regular Wikipedia account so you can make those changes as a user. --Virgil Vaduva 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is controversial. Your removing the edit constitutes a "biased" edit. We all have our biases and that's why we can have multiple points of view included in the article. I haven't deleted anything that you have written. It is useful to provide all points of view. I don't want to create an account. If I did, I would have done it already. 70.188.25.24 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Associating someone with "emergent" when the person never claimed such an association is quite controversial, and in your eyes apparently is an attempt to discredit Bell. Also, as I already specified, links to someone's blog is hardly considered "credible information" so I cannot understand how or why you continue with those edits and links. --Virgil Vaduva 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the quote from the 'Emergent Mystique' article in November 2004 Christianity today from Rob Bell where he talks about his presentation of Christianity, “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life.” Sounds to me like he is encouraging people to practice Christianity as an eastern religion. His church is also clearly identified as part of the emergent movement in that article. Unless you can produce a quote from Rob Bell that clearly states his church is not part of the emergent church than I would say that you have removed the edit without justification. 70.188.25.24 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• And you are using an out of context quote to portray him as a Buddha-seeking new-ager when he is speaking in the context of the Judaic (eastern) roots of Christianity, as opposed to the Greek (western) root of our faith. Thanks for using that quote to further prove your bias. So far I have agreed to the REASONABLE changes you suggested which are very well thought out and presented, but the paragraph you are insisting on inserting in the article will not stand. --Virgil Vaduva 01:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked your edit, thanks for not entirely removing what I had contributed. I got rid of the blog links and replaced it with link to a published article. I think one sentence acknowledging that many Christians finds his views unbiblical in an article that is generally favorable is not biased but provides some balance. I must admit that I have no idea what you are talking about saying that Judaism is an eastern Religion??[1] 70.188.25.24 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• As long as Yoga and "eastern religions" are mentioned, I cannot agree to the edit..I am sorry. Before either one of us agrees to further changes, it would be a good idea to discuss them here, otherwise we end in another stalling situation. --Virgil Vaduva 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to delete the edits and in support of your biased view without allowing other viewpoints to be represented, than I suppose there is no value in continuing the discussion. 70.188.25.24 03:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I made quite an effort and compromise quite a bit regarding your original submissions but you continue to insert inflammatory lingo like "eastern" and "yoga" into the article. I asked that we discuss further changes here but you are not willing to do so, so I am at a loss as to what we can do about it. --Virgil Vaduva 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try this one more time in an effort to end a protracted edit war. You have not compromised at all. I took out the link that you objected to. I agreed with your edit that says that Bell denies being part of the emergent church (although in the interview with him on your website it seems he just doesn't like any 'labels' at all and the interviewer seemed to think he was emergent). I added a direct quote from Bell regarding his promoting the eastern religious practices as helpful a model for Christian practice. He has used Yoga in his church and many Christian leaders have objected to his teachings in Velvet Elvis. I asked Yuser31415 about this and he said he was OK with the edits as long as they were cited appropriately. I don't agree with your assessment that the words "yoga" and "eastern" are inflammatory. 70.188.25.24 12:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you need to provide references, and you do not have any references for "eastern" and "yoga" - they are just your opinions...I have no idea if it's made up or what. The link to Christianity Today says nothing about him describing Christianity as an eastern religion. Please eliminate the two comments. Regarding Yuser31415 - he should know that this kind of criticism is borderline acceptable for this kind of an article, especially for a living person. If it was up to me, there would be no "Criticism" section in any article. Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia where someone like you with a grudge against Bell gets to write extended sections about what you dislike about the guy. This conversation is absolutely ridiculous to even have!--Virgil Vaduva 16:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Made several edits to the 'criticisms' section to pare it down to meet Wikipedia standards:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Source: WP:BLP

It appears that the critics of Bell have decided to make this their propaganda space, linking to disreputable blogs (like apprising.org), and quoting Bell's books out of context to make them say things they just don't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyonscc (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears most of the inflammatory information was added under the guise of "Updated Formatting" on November 15.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add any more 'apprising.org' links to this article. This website is a personal blog run by a "pastor" of a church of 5 people with a personal grudge against Bell in which he believes that he was called out by God to bring down Bell. Quoting apprising for criticism of Bell is like quoting Fred Phelps for criticism of the US Goverment, certainly it is criticism, but it is a lunatic fringe.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

72.86.14.75 is reverting material that was spuriously added under the guise of "updated formatting", including misquotes/partial quotes/cotextomy from Velvet Elvis. While the criticisms on the Virgin Mary section have been left intact, the sections I have removed are improperly used and misrepresented from the work in question. Additionally, I removed the Triva re: Nelson Mandela, as it is not sourced. I have also removed some blog reviews of Velvet Elvis for the same reason as other blog link removal.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Links

Why are there more links under criticism than valid links and references? This is outright spam and goes against Wikipedia rules. I will remove them unless the author has justification, AND he/she can say why all those links cannot be consolidated under one link. --Virgil Vaduva 00:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Gump

Gump, would you please explain what in the questionable paragraph which you continue posting is relevant to Rob Bell as a living person, or to his biography? The passage currently reads:

An online ministry testing Bell's doctrine against God's Word (understood as being the Bible) is Pastor Ken Silva's Apprising Ministries. Filled with a plethora of free information, Apprising Ministries reveals Bell's individual rendition of Kingdom Now theology as yet another culture pleasing product of postmodernism. Silva's ministry concludes that Bell is apostate in his teaching because his ministry is aimed at reinventing the message of the gospel in a manner which "contradicts those believers who have asked Jesus to forgive their sins and be their Lord and Savior." Bell, per Silva's site, promotes "Christ-following" as an alternative to orthodox Christianity, having nothing to do with individual acknowledgment and repentance of sin with a coinciding acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior.

This is a blatant advertisement (spam) for a third party which has nothing to do with this biographical article. You have also performed 7 reverts in the past 24 hours, which is against Wikipedia rules. On top of that, you reverted the warning template I posted on your User_talk:Gump page, which is also a very lame attempt to hide what you did wrong, after you issued a veiled threat against me, which is also very much against Wikipedia rules. --Virgil Vaduva 15:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to make this conversation more relevant; in the past 24 hours User:Gump broke the 3 reverts rule many times over; he has been suspended in the past for vandalism; he now logged out and is making reverts as anon from a Lexis Nexis IP address; he also had his userpage deleted in an apparent effort to "shred evidence" regarding his past activities. It's a shame that I have to beg for collaboration from users here who only seem to be interested in defaming and vandalizing articles the rest of us work hard on. I hope an admin will get involved quickly and resolve this matter; personally I think it's already out of hand. --Virgil Vaduva 15:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can talk all day long about ridiculous evidence shredding (??) but it all serves a single purpose: to take focus off of when the problem began, the moment you first removed any criticism and labeled it 'advertisement' - come on!! There is a reason the information was listed under criticism - because it didn't fall under biographical information, and was information contrary to Rob Bell's practices. But no, that's not good enough - you have to invoke a revert war, contact admins, get buddies involed, marr my discussion page with moral judgements, and accuse me of threatening you. Why? So the only end issue administrators look at is the revert violations, not how you began the problems by by removing criticism of Rob Bell. The only thing out of hand is your broad and destructive response to any views contrary to your own - IMO, a perfect representation of how most Emergents and Preterists behave. --Gump 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on living persons cannot be and should not be used as springboard for presenting critical views of the living person. I suggest you read the Wiki rules on how to deal with biographical information on a living person. Furthermore, I quoted the controversial passage above. Instead of dealing with the substance of the passage (which is what I called into question), you are now calling me "unbalanced" and using ad-hominem attacks to promote your version of the article. How about dealing with the paragraph at the center of the controversy instead? Why is there a passage of substantial length dedicated to a non-profit organization that has nothing to do with the person Rob Bell? I asked that question several times so far and you failed to answer. --Virgil Vaduva 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like it's getting quite warm in here. I suggest you both take a day or two off (at least a couple hours). Cool down and come back to contributing with a clear mind. - Charleca 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Critics and Biased Material

It appears that despite my clear and unequivocal reference to Wikipedia guidelines, Gump is still ignoring the outstanding rules, so I will quote what the recommendations are regarding critics:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Source: WP:BLP

As of right now, the Criticism section in the Rob Bell article should not even exist; furthermore, it represents almost 50% of the content of the article, which is clearly against Wikipedia rules. This is unacceptable from a biographical perspective, and since the subject is a living person, this abuse of criticism should be enforced even more strictly. This article should be about Rob Bell, not about his supporters, critics or organizations/individuals who specialize in criticizing Rob Bell. Please deal with those facts (if you can) and leave ad-hominem attacks out of this discussion. --Virgil Vaduva 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

References

I redid the way sources were being referenced in order to have consistency across the board. If future contributors would use the ref tag for future references, that would really help with the consistency and look of the article.

As an additional thing, if nobody has any objections, I will remove the reference template at the top of the article; with the exception of two quotes, I believe the article is very well referenced so far. --Virgil Vaduva 16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links

The external links list is getting too long. I suggest we cut out most of the links - specifically the supporters and criticism links - and only have those related to Rob Bell (like nooma.com)- Charleca 12:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree in light of this being a biographical article. Give it a few days for everyone to read this and see people say. --Virgil Vaduva 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'll give it a week (7 days).

This is day 2 3 4 5 6 7.

Tomorrow's the final day.

- Charleca 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gump is back at it

I see that User:Gump is back at it, indiscriminately adding random content without participating in the constructive community process to build a quality article. Again, we may have to appeal to administrators to intervene since he seems to not be grasping the way Wikipedia works. --Virgil Vaduva 17:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Critics and links

Could we please abstain from posting, quoting and linking to pseudo-critics of Rob Bell that are unknown or have no credibility to raise a reasonable critique? I've asked this before but apparently nobody is listening. This biographical article is not a place where anyone who feels like writing a blog entry that is critical should be able to come and spam the article with links; nor should supporters be able to do the opposite. Personally I think that is unreasonable and uncalled for. Also, I have asked countless times to discuss changes here before they are made; I am talking to the wind. --Virgil Vaduva 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, external links need to be discussed here before adding. -Charleca 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

Please do not add a trivia section back into the article. All the info under the Trivia has been moved and incorporated into the body of the article, and trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. --Virgil Vaduva 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrangement

I've rearranged the paragraphs so that the Contents Box give a bit more information to the reader. I have no opinion about this preacher but simply want to regularize the content. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit War - December 8-10 re: Criticism

An apparent edit war between 72.86.14.75 and Lyonscc occurred (and may still be going on) between December 8 and 10, with 72.86.14.75 reverting to old versions of the page which contain blog-sourced links, or Wikipedia:Coatrack issues. Let us please keep the current version (176982057) and work forward from there, as a number of factual additions and links have been added which reverts will lose.

At issue, it appears that 72.86.14.75, who has not yet responded to any discussion, objects to the removal of links to Casey Freswick's article from a church blog (http://www.reformedfellowship.net/), which is a review of Velvet Elvis, and which appears to be in contradiction to Wikipedia:Coatrack, and does not contribute to the quality of the article.

I would suggest that this also violates WP:NOR,

Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way.

, WP:NPOV and WP:V

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources

--Lyonscc (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, 72.86.14.75 seems to object to removal of a video response to a video of Bell's, "Bullhorn". This is clearly an obscure reference and contrary to Wikipedia:Coatrack

I would suggest that this also violates WP:NOR,

Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way.

, WP:NPOV and WP:V

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources

--Lyonscc (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

72.86.14.75 also continues to add back links to apprising.org (see previous discussionon this, as well), which is a blog site run by Ken Silva, a pastor of a 5-person church with a self-documented messianic vision of taking down Bell. Most of his "research" is self-referential (between one of 5 blogs he manages or writes for), and what remains is often of dubious nature or deliberately deceptive. Apprising.org (and Silva's other blogs) are not credible sources and should not be added again

I would suggest that this also violates WP:NOR,

Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way.

, WP:NPOV and WP:V

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources

--Lyonscc (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

72.86.14.75 also wants to add back links to random negative blog reviews of Velvet Elvis, again obscure references and Wikipedia:Coatrack issues.

I would suggest that this also violates WP:NOR,

Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way.

, WP:NPOV and WP:V

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources

--Lyonscc (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyonscc Removed all of the criticism section except for the "Virgin Mary" discussion from Velvet Elvis. This appears to be too extreme of a change, and should not be repeated, though it appears that the "Criticism" section needs work, as there is misleading information contained therein.

I can accept this, though I will probably have some rewrites to suggest. I see that Gump and 72.86.14.75 don't seem to be honoring your request to discuss the other changes, though.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE do not revert to versions prior to 176982057, and please do not add in the above information without thorough discussion here, first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt2002 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) --Thunderbolt2002 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyonscc, I can understand your frustration, and I agree with your most recent edit (which just removed a redundant paragraph and re-ordered items without changing them). However, can you hold off on more edits until we see if Gump or the anon editor reply here?--Thunderbolt2002 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thunderbolt2002 I am all in favor of a 24 hour cool down period. As far as Gump or anon go, you can read the discussion page here and see a history of uncooperative edits coming from Gump, so don't count on it. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

--This is a first for me. I never expected to see my name in Rob Bell's slot. However, there are some errors that you should consider. My article is not self published. It first appeared in Outlook Magazine, this has a 50+ year history. The Article was approved by a governing board, elected. Full disclosure, I am one of 10 members of the board. Am I qualified to write on article about Rob Bell? You should be the judge. However, at this point I would say that the criticism section of Rob Bell is not criticism at all. I am not sure how all this works, but it seems to me that it would be better to remove the criticism section totally than to attempt, from a sympathetic slant, to criticize the critics. One might ask, what expertise to you have to do this. I do not intend in any way to slander anyone, including Rob Bell. I have been slandered enough. I sent Rob Bell my criticism, asking if he though there was any part wrong. I recently did this with another Pastor of Mars Hill. No one claimed I had misrepresented Rob Bell. No one responded to my article. From my perspective, which I believe represents a historic confessional submission to Scripture, there are clear differences between Rob Bell and the truth of Scripture. Rev. Casey Freswick (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Rev. Casey Freswick (Did I post this right? I am not an expert in this format of communication.)

In Wikipedia, a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV is to be achieved for every article. In Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP), sections on criticism can identify WHERE criticism/controversy exists (if they are representative of large groups and not just vocal fringe minorities (which is primarily where Bell's critics lie)), but they are not places in which to try to persuade that the criticism is true (which is considered "Original Research" - WP:NOR)--Lyonscc (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank your for this explanation. It helps. I checked out some other living persons Wikipedia. Using your criteria I would think you need to reevaluate your position on the nature of the criticism of Rob Bell. The criticism of Rob Bell is not just from vocal fringe minorities. Would the Biblical Council on Manhood and Womanhood be considered a fringe minority? They represent the historic position of the protestant and catholic church that women should not be ordained to authoritative office? Rob Bell disagrees. Even if the majority of churches changed their practice I would doubt that anyone would claim that either side of the issue was a "fringe minority". This is but one issue where the positions of Rob Bell are far different than the historic practice and doctrine of Christian churches. Let me explain this related to Rob Bell's hermeneutical principles of interpretation. In his most resent book, SEX GOD, Rob Bell writes, "God meets people where they are and invites them to the next sate of enlightenment. And then, when they've reached that stage, God invites them to the next state after that"(p. 136). He then invites us to learn more about this by reading a book by William Webb, SLAVES, WOMEN AND HOMOSEXUALS (SEX GOD, p. 194, note 135). This is a work advocating a new perspective on ethics rooted in a so called "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" that focuses on the age old difficult question about the cultural trans-cultural significance of various ethical declarations of scripture. Webb's book is critiqued in an article entitled: SHOULD WE MOVE BEYOND THE NEW TESTAMENT TO A BETTER ETHIC? in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2004 by Grudem, Wayne. I do not think Webb is a fringe element of theological discourse today, although I am certain he is wrong. On the other hand, I do not think the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society is a vocal fringe minority publication or society. Rob Bell advocates the ethical perspective of Webb, Wayne Grudem advocates the historical ethic of conservative Christian scholars for centuries. At the very least your claim that "WHERE criticism/controversy exists (if they are representative of large groups and not just vocal fringe minorities (which is primarily where Bell's critics lie))" is false. If you believe this to be the case it indicates that you do not have a very good grasp on what Rob Bell teaches nor on what is taught by those holding to a historic Christian ethic. It also seems to me that the current criticism section seeks to persuade people that the criticism is false, which seems to be as wrong as trying to persuade people that the criticism is true. Once again you fail your own test. Lyonscc I do not believe you are capable to determine these matters. Your bias, as mine may well be, are far to obvious. But it is beyond doubt that Rob Bell is being criticized by many people representing a historic perspective within a broadly defined Christian tradition. Rev. Casey Freswick (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Rev. Casey Freswick

Actually, it would be fair to note that Bell holds an egalatarian position on the service of women in the church in the "Criticism" section. That was not present there, previously. Most of what was there was exposition based on a paragraph in Velvet Elvis and a number of other coatrack issues which were (and are) indeed "fringe" criticisms.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the current "Criticism" section should be much smaller than it is (per other conversations), as the first round of edits was primarily trying to balance out WP:COAT coatrack issues, like the quote on Christianity as an "Eastern" religion. This particular quote was included as a way to try to suggest that Bell supports "eastern religions" like hinduism, etc. So - providing the context for the quote was done to preserve WP:NPOV, as striking the entire thing in the midst of the edit war would have just ratcheted up tensions. The same could be said of the first quote (where truth can be found) in isolation appearing to be in support of universalism, so the clarification was added to preserve WP:NPOV. I'm also not sure why the Sun-Times quote is there, as well...--Lyonscc (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia and Criticism

For the record, I agree with both User:Lyonscc and User:Thunderbolt2002. Several months ago we put a great deal of effort into incorporating the Trivia section of the article into the rest of the content, after which an anon user added it back in. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss those changes and work out those differences, so PLEASE READ THIS PAGE BEFORE MAKING MAJOR CHANGES TO THE ARTICLE.

There are two major issues with the article as it currently stands:

1. The criticism section is almost as large if not larger than the article itself. This is unacceptable and is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. The article is about Rob Bell, not about what's wrong with him or his views.

2. The criticism section and criticism links contain points which are, as Lyonscc observed, in violation of Wikipedia:Coatrack and the guidelines put forth in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Do not forget that this article is about a living person. I will quote a paragraph which all of us may find beneficial when contributing to this article:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

So as a reminder to User:Gump, there are lots of things to discuss, and they need to be discussed in order to maintain WP:NPOV which is the foundation of this site. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Suggestions

I suggest the following changes to the Criticism section:

1) To the Virgin Mary section, which currently reads:

Immediately following the release of his book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, some evangelicals criticized some comments made in the book, especially those focused on the virgin birth of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity:

"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being "born of a virgin" also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?"

However residing on only the next page (p. 27) Rob comments on how, "I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the trinity". Many claim that the outrage over these words only further the point that Rob was trying to make. That if we question our faith, for some people it can crumble. (p. 26)

This is both a Wikipedia:Coatrack issue, and it is in violation of W:NOR. Rather than simply identifying the criticism, this current section attempts to lay the groundwork for the criticism using a section of Velvet Elvis in a manner of contextomy fallacy, where reading the entire chapter (or a much more expanded excerpt) is required to see the context of this discussion. The additional comments, while putting the first into more context, still prolong the coatrack and NOR issue.

I propose this be changed to:

following the release of his book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, some evangelicals criticized some comments made in the book, which hypothetically questioned the virgin birth on one page, while confirming it on the next, and which seemed to question Sola Scriptura doctrine on one page, while affirming it on the next.

2) One paragraph begins:

His teaching is often characterized as postmodern, he does not believe that all the answers can be found in "Scripture alone."

The first part of this paragraph is not sourced, and is inaccurate. Bell and his church describe his teaching as "Narrative" in style (as opposed to "Didactic"), which is not an exclusively postmodern stylist element. The second part of this statement (which tries to coatrack the issue of Sola Scriptura) is covered in the proposed changes in #1 (which was where his "Scripture alone" comment was originally documented in Velvet Elvis). This entire sentence should be stricken.

3) The first paragraph begins:

While Rob Bell has never claimed an association with the movement, Bell's critics often associate him with the Emerging Church movement, pointing out that Bell teaches that the church should embrace mystery and doubt rather than certainty.

This is unsourced, and Bell has specifically said that he and his church are not part of this movement on several occasions, including the premire.TV UK interview and the Mars Hill Sermon "Q and A" from May 6, 2007. The "emerging church" has become a catch-all collection for complaints by reformed/evangelical bloggers, none of which meet the W:V sourcing guidelines. This sentence should be completely stricken.

4) The next section is:

In his writings, Bell affirms truth regardless of the source, saying "I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any worldview. If it's true, it belongs to God."

This is another instance of contextomy, for the purpose of suggestion that Bell is a universalist, and in a manner that would contradictory of the Mars Hill Bible Church statement of narrative theology, which he helped author.

I would propose this be changed to:

Bell affirms truth regardless of the source, saying "I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any worldview. If it's true, it belongs to God." However, he acknowledges scripture as the authoritative source of truth in the Mars Hill Bible Church statement of narrative theology, which he helped author.

--Lyonscc (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

These changes appear to be reasonable, though I would give it a day to collect any additional suggestions--Thunderbolt2002 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User Gump is back at it - reverting multiple changes to antiquated versions of the page and refusing to engage discussion in Talk:Rob_Bell on changes consistent with W:NOR, Wikipedia:Coatrack, and W:V--Lyonscc (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This really doesn't need a third opinion. The suggested version by Lyonscc clearly cleans up the original research and lack of a neutral point of view. If the reverts continue I suggest taking the issue to the admin notice board. Although, the proposed change still has some weasel words ("some evangelicals criticized some comments made in the book"), but it's certainly better than the alternative. Justin ^chat 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding Nooma To Bibliography

I suggest that Bell's Nooma videos be added to the Bibliography:

• Rain 001 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265126
• Flame 002 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265142
• Trees 003 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265169
• Sunday 004 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265185
• Noise 005 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265215
• Kickball 006 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265231
• Luggage 007 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265258
• Dust 008 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265274
• Bullhorn 009 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265290
• Lump 010 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310265339
• Rythm 011 (Zondervan, 2005) ISBN 0310269148
• Matthew 012 (Zondervan, 2006) ISBN 0310269156
• Rich 013 (Zondervan, 2006) ISBN 0310269164
• Breathe 014 (Zondervan, 2006) ISBN 0310269326
• You 015 (Zondervan, 2007) ISBN 0310269342
• Store 016 (Zondervan, 2007) ISBN 0310269369
• Today 017 (Zondervan, 2007) ISBN 0310269385
• Name 018 (Zondervan, 2007) ISBN 0310269407
• open 019 (Zondervan, 2008) ISBN 0310269431 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyonscc (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just my suggestion, this list is actually way too long for the article itself and may not be relevant to the biography of a living person. You would be better off creating a separate NOOMA article which discusses NOOMA in detail and includes all the episodes and information about it.

As an update, this list is already under NOOMA - I wasn't even aware that there is a NOOMA article. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

The ongoing dispute will be taken to arbitration committee. Opposing views are not tolerated and are routinely removed by a gang of Preterist buddies. This same group has removed unbiased revisions by GeorgeLouis, Alexfusco5, any many other users over the past year. Any discussions are dominated by the gang and only accepted terms between these buddies are deemed final.

-- Gump (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gump has refused to even engage in the discussion (above) (noting that I am not a preterist), and continues to add back links and items that are in violation of W:V and W:NOR, all of which are also in opposition to Wikipedia:Coatrack. The source of Criticisms has been retained in the current version, written in NPOV, without trying to lay out the entire case for these criticisms (which Gump and other anons keep doing, in violation of W:NOR).--Lyonscc (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that all changes made today have been on this page, above, available for comment for 24 hours prior to their being posted - along with several days for the previous changes, also mentioned above - with no comment from Gump or the anon vandals.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To follow a comment above, I agree with Lyonscc. From the history of this article, I see no need for arbitration in the context of User:Gump making unwarranted changes to it. He has refused repeatedly to participate in Talk:Rob_Bell and discuss changes proposed and opposed by the community and has repeatedly ignored NPOV issues raised by myself and many other users. He apparently appeals to arbitration only after he is refusing to participate in the constructive process to create a better article. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cite all the Wiki rules you want (which you routenely break), but your entire argument is based on the false presupposition that the Rob Bell fans who police this article for opposing views can actually be reasoned with. It is impossible to 'discuss' or 'talk' about anything with anyone when you are up against a gang of Rob Bell lovers who will dogpile you or any proposed criticism. Don't try to distance yourself from each other with pretend criticism or claims that you aren't preterist - you're all in this together. -- Gump (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing this page

Lyonscc, please try to not edit the comments I (or others) add to this talk page and try to add a new section if possible. It gets confusing and it appears that your comments are mine; so let's try to keep comments clean cut in order to know who says what and when. Using indentation or a new section header is a good way to separate your comments from another's.

You can use the plus sign tab at the top of the page to add a new section if you don't know how else to do it. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just in time to appear balanced for the arbitration review, your very first comment critical of your cohorts. Tsk tsk :) Gump (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would make a pretty good lawyer, don't you think? --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Virgil - my apologies for the confusion - I'm new at editing in wiki. As for Gump (who sounds a whole lot like Ken Silva), why is it you have refused to engage in discussion on the article and the need to maintain W:NPOV, W:NOR, W:V and to avoid Wikipedia:Coatrack issues? It is very clear in W:V that blogs are not to be sources for Wikipedia articles, and that material, like that in apprising.org (the personal blog of Ken Silva) does not even come close to the level of scrutiny required for WP:BLP. We have tried to include the SOURCE of criticism (which I would suggest is still too obscure, in cases) without trying to lay out a biased case for/against the criticism (in violation of W:NOR). The fact that you have not engaged here in any meaningful fashion to date and that you skipped Mediation, suggests that your Arbitration will be rejected...--Lyonscc (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Undoing of AlexFusco Revert

This article is currently under arbitration, Alex, and your revert went WAY too far back, removing multiple good faith edits and additions. Please engage us on the talk page before making any more reverts. If you continue to revert without prior communication, we will require mediation, as you are bypassing the normal process.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I restored the wrong revision Alexfusco5 22:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Attention to all involved I have requested full protection of this article Alexfusco5 23:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex. It is sad, but this is not the only case where Gump/Ken refuses to engage people on the issues.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Requested

I have submitted a request for a third opinion. Please do not alter the article until we hear back from this (including Alexfusco). Per WP:BLP, it is imperative that we err on the side of doing no harm, which means leaving questionably sourced material (ex. apprising.org, which is a blog and not a viable source), so we need to let the process(es) work before making potentially defamatory actions.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully these same authorities will remain fair and take the time to look at the number of good faith edits you reverted so that the article would conform to your all-positive, messianic view of Rob Bell. Your language and actions sure shift to a "I'm all about the rules!" when the cops come to town. -- Gump (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've missed the Criticism section in the (currently protected) article, Ken. It is certainly not "all positive". Rather, it identifies the areas of criticism without resorting to partial presentation of the facts in order to lead to a conclusion, which is exactly what the "No Original Research" W:NOR policy is in place to prevent - a loss of NPOV for the purpose of persuasion. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gump, most of the edits you are doing involve links to personal blogs and biased opinions related to this living person. This is not the way to develop a biographical article here and it's obvious you have a hard time sticking to facts; you already made it clear on the history page that "there is nothing to discuss," which is a clear indicator that you have no interest in constructive editing. Your personal attacks on everyone who objects to your edits are also totally unwarranted. Furthermore, you apparently have also made several edits from Liberty University as an anon user, which is also not cool. This is not the way to get something done here. We already went through this months ago and you didn't get it your way. It's not going to go your way this time either, because I am not going anywhere. I hope you rethink your vitriolic approach. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration denied

Gump, your request for arbitration was denied by User:Blnguyen and User:Jpgordon . I already suggested that the request was premature and unwarranted. I suggest again you stick to the discussion avenue and contribute to the conversation in order to create a better article. I just read your rant on the arbitration requests page where you are viciously attacking me personally and my theology, as if any of these people know what Preterism is, or as if they care about our theological differences; with every new comment you are posting here you are failing to deal with the facts of the article and you take the personal attack route. I also want to remind you that you got blocked from editing Rob Bell once before. I haven't yet filed a formal complaint about you because you only made several reverts, but I strongly encourage you again to read WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:COAT before you make other edits here. For now the article is protected by Bibliomaniac15. Thanks, and please, for the 100th time, rethink your attitude! --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you win and Truth suffers another casualty. You may see my rant as a personal attack, but the essence of a personal attack is untrue statements made with the specific intent in undermining the reputation or credibility of another. Seeing that 1) my "rant" is 100% true and 2) it only lists and identifies true characteristics, I would hardly call it a personal attack. My attitude needs adjustment? You play victim every time you are at a factual disadvantage and cannot defend your views without the dogpile tactic of outnumbering opposing views with the help of uber-l33t people like Chris. Very Stalinesque. You could NEVER, not in a million years, win a 1-on-1 debate over the criticism of Rob Bell let alone describe and defend Preterism to any sane person. This is precisely why you are severely outnumbered on this topic in the real world and always will be. It's a shame that the average person doesn't have the mad Wiki and victim skills you possess so the advantage could be regained. You NEED Wikipedia to reflect your views otherwise, where would they go? That they rely on Wikipedia for viable existence demonstrates why Wikipedia itself is not - and continues to not be -- taken seriously by any professional organization or educational facility. It is time to be a man; stop crying about nonexistent personal attacks. The whole world isn't out to get you, so don't feel the need to get revenge on behalf of the rarity of your views by regularly policing the internet. If this isn't the definition of a wasted existence, nothing is. Your eschatological views won't save you from (at best) the Bema Seat, where you will need to explain why you so adamently protect a heretical humanist [2] who coaxes the public into believing that the person on that throne has faith in those who needed to be rescued in the first place. -- Gump (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Gump, I'd say you have some pretty severe truth-perception issues going on there. I'm still waiting to see your rationale for inclusion of blog-sourced material in the article under discussion. As for your rant being "100% true", the local church I belong to is 150+ years old (hardly 'Emergent') and in a non-denominational tradition of the Restoration Movement. As for my eschaology, I would describe it as amillennial partial preterism, which has been the primary view of the church since the first century, with only the primary competition of premillenial dispensationalism [3] (primarily in America) since Darby invented it in the 1800's (with minority views of premillennialism in spots of history prior to this). Your descriptions of your imaginings of my views of eschatology, though, were pretty much dead wrong. So your "100% truth" is 0% true. So - how about rather than trying to boast about your skills as a master debator, we just stick to the topic at hand? What is your rationale for inclusion of blog-sourced and WP:COAT material in this article? (And if you're going to address me by name, how about giving us yours, or must you hide behind anonymity and refuse to discuss the actual issue at hand in this setting?)--Lyonscc (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would I respond to someone who isn't bright enough to realize when they aren't being spoken to? -- Gump (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how your "rant" in the Request for Arbitration listed ME as the opposing party and continually referred to me as part of the "group" repressing you, even if your comment above was directed at Virgil, the veracity of your comment about "100% truth" was a wider question, and soundly proven false. Try again, Ken/Gump.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the brightest crayon in the box, are you? No. Is this the request for arbitration? No. Was the comment part of a wider question? No. Are you the center of the universe? No. Am I this Ken you keep speaking of? No....definitely not. Are you cool because despite being a middle aged parent, you lurk on Wikipedia all day? No. Do you need to find a day job? Yes. Three things are for sure -- you are obsessed with apprising.org, you have been "soundly proven" to be an idiot, and most importantly, I'm still not talking to you, no matter how important you want to feel right now. Despite our obvious differences in views, Virgil has 100x the sense you have, and now I respect him all the more. If you represent the future of Emergent hippies/non-Jewish WASPs who babble in ignorance about Rabbinic Judaism all day, I feel quite comfortable....and I guess my work here is done after all! Nice work, slick! -- Gump (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Unsuitability of Apprising.org as a source

One thing that needs to be settled once and for all in this particular discussion is the complete unsuitability of apprising.org links and/or information as source material.

1) It is a blog. This, in and of itself, is reason enough for it to not be a source. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (emphasis mine)

2) Apprising is poorly sourced Apprising.org is a blog for Apprising "Ministries" (sic), a one-man show run by Ken Silva, the "pastor" of a church of 5 people in rural New Hampshire. It has been documented that more than two thirds of his "research" is simply self-referential links to his own sites, and that the remaining third of his "research" is to sites he contributes to or other blogs [4].

3) Material from the apprising site in unhinged. He has claimed that God raised him up to bring down Rob Bell, in particular, and if you pick out articles at random from his site, like this one [5] it becomes completely apparent that this site is not of the quality required for a W:V verifiable source.

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;

--Lyonscc (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment recommending a permanent block on Gump editing this article

I have filed a formal complaint against Gump [6]. Virgil, can you sign it please?--Lyonscc (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to support an outright complaint against Gump but his recent responses directed at Lyonscc are outrageous. I fully endorse the complaint. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that vampire scripts and lawsuit threats are pretty outrageous too...but no, not on THIS level.... although, I'm not surprised that Lyonscc took heart to establish my claim that he needs a dayjob... :) Gump (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

the gods aren't angry

Once the article is unblocked, we should consider adding a small sub-section on the the gods aren't angry tour and explain what it's all about. In fact we should add sub-headers under Projects for all these entries so the article is better organized. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The "Other Projects" section seems a bit choppy...--Lyonscc (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine Article

After unblocking, I think it would be worth mentioning/linking to the Time Magazine profile of Rob this month. In case you haven't seen it, it's here. RonCG (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to unprotect?

3 months seems like a long while. Or am I missing something?

CaptinJohn (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here We Go Again?

Before trying to reintroduce material which violates WP:V (like Freswick's self-published material and Driscoll's criticisms), or violates WP:POV and WP:COAT (the same material, plus the reversion of the criticisms section, previously agreed to above) - please discuss here. If you don't like the guy, go write a blog - this isn't your blog space.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with not liking the guy, it's just that Driscoll's criticizing of Rob Bell was a big deal and Mark is a well-recognized figure in Christian circles. The rest of the criticism section says "some conservative..." and this provides a specific name. If this isn't suitable, then get rid of the criticism sections in Rob's profile (and in profiles of other Christian leaders). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.37.46 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A lecture/sermon by one pastor against another does not meet the level of quality required by Encyclopedic sources, particularly a biography of a living person WP:BLP - it is no different than a blog entry WP:V. Wikipedia is not a place to grind axes, it is an encyclopedia. This article is supposed to be about an individual, not why people agree/disagree with that individual. Additionally, Driscoll's comments would also be a WP:COAT coatrack issue, as they are basically an example of fisking footnotes (obscure references, per WP:V) and can easily be disputed. A biography page is not the place to carry on original researchWP:NOR, so it doesn't belong there.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - the primary purpose of the revert was not the Driscoll information (which was in violation, as above), but primarily the edits by 71.254.83.242 which were deceptively titled "Formatting updated", but were, in reality, a revert to the HIGHLY non-WP:NPOV version that was the cause of the revert war in December.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Driscoll Criticism of Bell

The Driscoll Criticism of Bell, mentioned above, has no place in the article per wp:BLP:

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. (emphasis mine)

1) Driscoll's criticism has nothing to do with Bell's notability

2) It is clearly guilt by association, as it is related to an author in a footnote in one of his many written/filmed works - classic guilt-by-association reasoning.

3) It is not published by a reliable source, but is rather a lecture/sermon by Driscoll, which is no more reliable than a blog - neither of which meet the reliable source test--Lyonscc (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is unreal

Wasn't this article just unprotected a few days ago? Why are admins allowing these IPs to continue vandalizing it without any permanent or long-term banning? --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Rob Bell has seen a lot of criticisms from a lot of sources. Many of those are probably people who don't fully understand what he is trying to do. But the article makes it seem as though those are the only sort of criticisms he has received. His scathing rebuke (though followed by a happy "i luv everybody & ur next lol") isn't particularly a good way to end the "criticism" section 'cause it pretty much assumes that all his critics are self-seeking hate-mongering vicious nutjobs. Not very NPOV.

Is there any way an editor could expand the criticisms section so that it doesn't overwhelmingly make Rob look like a hero? We obviously don't want to take a point of view attacking Rob, but the criticisms section is anything but neutral right now. Rather than just paraphrasing a few of the more confused critics and labeling them as "vicious" (which is what that quote de facto does), why doesn't somebody add more reasoned criticisms - by people who say stuff more like "We understand what Rob Bell is trying to do but in his attempts he is creating a new gospel" - stuff like that. Then quote his responses. Just don't select only the criticisms that he most soundly defeats, you know? 199.88.20.8 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the misconceptions with biography pages in Wikipedia is that they should be the repository of any and all quibbles people have with the subject (see WP:BLP). (In many cases, this seems to stem from some sort of desire to 'warn' people about the subject, which in itself is a root of WP:NPOV.) Generally, though, the criticism section should stick to criticisms which deal with the subject's notability. Most of Bell's sources of criticism tent to be blog-sourced or self-published, which violates WP:BLP and WP:V, and/or they tend to misrepresent what Bell has said (when taken in context) creating straw-man or guilt-by-association fallacies, or requiring laying out systematic connections on the Wiki page (which is a violation of WP:NOR). Additionally, when dealing with religious figures, 90% of the people in the world will disagree with a person's stance for one reason or another - For instance, Bell is not a Calvinist, so to lay out all of the criticisms against him for not holding to the TULIP isn't really helpful or encyclopedic.

Having gone back and forth over what to include and what to leave out, the editors have tried to leave in the most commonly criticized statements juxtaposed with the greater context for the purpose of maintaining WP:NPOV. Based on web stats, the most criticized comments have involved his section on the Virgin Mary in Velvet Elvis, his statement about all truth being God's, no matter where it is found (also in VE), his comment about Christianity being "Eastern" in Christianity Today, and his comments some have interpreted as being against Sola Scriptura in VE.--Lyonscc (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a massive overhaul for grammar and linguistic style. it reads very poorly. -mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.165.40 (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'Eastern religion' criticism

In reading the criticism section as it now stands, the second paragraph on 'Eastern religion' doesn't seem to fit at all. It's not a criticism (as I read it), yet it doesn't seem to flow from the first para. Are there reasons I shouldn't move that para to a different part of the article? 60.241.239.146 (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire "Eastern Religion" criticism should probably be removed, as its inclusion was initially an ad homenim criticism to suggest that Bell supports New Age, Asian, Hindu and other Eastern religions. Some folks were insistent on keeping the criticism, so the second sentence was added (based on numerous comments by Bell in sermons, and his 2003 trip to Israel and Turkey with VanderLaan) to keep a WP:NPOV.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has no idea what the term "ad homenim (sic)" means. Ad hominem arguments are the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. Pointing out in a criticism section that Rob Bell has made arguments in support of eastern religions is a fact not an ad hominem fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.121.2 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about Ad hominem attacks, but wrong about Eastern religions. Bell didn't make arguments in support of eastern religions, he talked about seeing Christianity as an eastern religion (i.e. not as a western, white religion, but with a semitic source). Please try and read quotes objectively. Casaubonian (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)